Debates of May 31st, 1994

Budget Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.47 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Seniors-Reduction Of Age Credit

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should withdraw the measure to reduce the age credit that it introduced in its most recent budget, and retain the Old Age Security Program and the Canada Pension Plan in their present forms.

Mr. Speaker, Motion M-289 which I am presenting in this House today brings out the expectations of seniors throughout the country. Groups of seniors from Vanier, Les Saules, Limoilou, Neufchâtel, Ancienne-Lorette and Duberger in my riding told me about their concerns for the future and I fully share these concerns in light of recent events.

The present Liberal government displays a serious lack of social equity and economic justice. Instead of reducing its shameless waste and administrative duplication or even requiring the 90,000 corporations that do not pay tax to contribute their fair share, the government is attacking the poor, the middle class, the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the elderly.

On the pretext of reducing its deficit, the Liberal government is attacking defenceless groups in society which are already in a precarious financial situation, because these Liberals are a heartless government.

In the last budget, we saw how $5.5 billion was taken from the unemployed in unemployment insurance programs. We just voted on this measure in this House.

As for seniors, the first thing the government did in this same budget was to reduce the age credit. I say the first thing the government did because other equally harmful measures were introduced and are still to come from the Liberal government. The age credit reduced federal income tax by about $610 a year for all taxable seniors. The amendment reduces this credit by 15 per cent for all seniors whose taxable income exceeds $25,921 and it is totally eliminated for incomes over $49,100.

Thus the Liberal government intends to save $490 million by 1997 on the backs of seniors. Across the country, 800,000 seniors will be affected by this measure. Does the Liberal government consider that an elderly person with an annual income of $25,000 is a rich taxpayer? Does it consider that with such an amount, which is barely above the poverty level, that person must still give money to the government, after having paid taxes throughout his life and working hard to be able to enjoy a modest income in his retirement years?

The federal government did not stop there as regards cuts made at the expense of seniors. Its latest idea is to set up a centralized answering machine system using voice boxes to answer queries from seniors. This dehumanization of services to the elderly is simply pitiful!

The idea is simple. Offices serving seniors in Val d'Or, Chicoutimi, Gatineau, Rimouski, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, Trois-Rivières and Sept-Îles will be closed. The number of agents in Quebec City will be considerably reduced, since at least 123 of the current 347 positions across the province will be abolished.

In fact, the number of jobs eliminated could reach 50 per cent of the current strength and all these positions will be replaced by a single telephone exchange in Montreal, a recorded questionnaire for touch-tone telephones for seniors across the province.

From now on, the elderly will talk to a pre-recorded voice. They will talk to a machine to get the information they need. To make things worse, if the lines are overloaded at the Montreal exchange, the calls will be transferred to another province. Is this not a perfect example of how the government holds our elderly in contempt? We can easily imagine the numerous problems which they will encounter with this new system. Indeed, problems related to hearing, eyesight and dexterity are common occurrences in that age group. Talking to a machine will create unavoidable difficulties for seniors. How will they be able to ask that machine to explain something they do not understand? How will they be able to explain particular circumstances? How can the machine understand all the subtleties of a case and know in which category to find the information required by the person?

Such recordings are already being used in several locations and they never provide the information required. I myself have a lot of problems with the touch-tone system requiring you to press one for English, two for French, three for general informa-

tion, and four for specific information. The question we want to ask never falls in the proposed categories.

This is not to mention the fact that many elderly do not even have a touch-tone telephone. These people, and those who will not have managed to get an answer, will be able to talk to an agent. But how long will they have to wait? The staff of people manning the phones has been cut by nearly 50 per cent. And do you think the government bothered to consult senior citizens, the group concerned here, or their associations or federations? Certainly not! They did not consult seniors to find out whether the system met their needs.

Liberal members will tell us that the system will provide faster and more efficient service. We know that the new system will get on a lot of people's nerves. Using speed and efficiency as an excuse, the Liberal government will manage to cut down on the amount of money paid to seniors, since many seniors will give up trying to claim what they are entitled to, because it is so hard to get the information they need.

Misinformation of its senior clients as a result of a dehumanized system will help the Liberals save money at the expense of seniors, who did not file the requisite applications or were unable to use this so-called speedy and effective system correctly. Effective for whom?

Many pensioners will forgo their right to the guaranteed income supplement, for instance, because of lack of a information. The Liberal government prefers to dehumanize the system and not inform to its senior clients, so that seniors themselves will give up on the service. I think this is sufficient proof that the Liberal government is ruthless. Instead of attacking seniors, instead of reducing their tax credit or changing the way they receive services, the government should pull up its socks and cut where cuts are really necessary.

Family trusts, for instance. We talked about these in the House today during Question Period, to show how the Liberals caved in to pressure by lobbyists who wanted to maintain family trusts. These family trusts make it possible for rich families to put billions of dollars in a tax shelter. We know these trusts contain at least $100 billion, and we know who benefits.

Is cutting money for seniors and the unemployed and maintaining family trusts the kind of equity the Liberals had in mind? A tax of only 20 per cent on the $100 billion in family trusts would mean $20 billion, and that kind of measure is worthwhile, to reduce the deficit.

Abolishing the many tax shelters and loopholes in corporate tax would also give the government a chance to show it is serious about attacking the deficit. Meanwhile, cutting fat in the public service and getting rid of duplication would raise several more billion.

We should also get rid of historic institutions that are symbolic and have become too costly for a country like Canada, such as the Senate, on which the government wastes $500 million annually, and the Governor General, the Lieutenant-Governors and the Queen. We also have 90,000 Canadian corporations that do not pay a cent of income tax, and hundreds of millionaires who paid less than $100 in taxes last year. They should also contribute towards putting Canada's finances back on track, instead of leaving this to our seniors and unemployed.

There are many other measures I could suggest, if I had more time. To paraphrase the Bible: The government giveth and the government taketh away. It takes money from us all and gives only to a chosen few.

Before we make cuts in the Old Age Security Program or the Canada Pension Plan, we have to remember that the government made some moral commitments when it created these two programs. The OAS Program was built with the sweat of our senior citizens. In 1952, when this program was introduced, a majority of 81 per cent of MPs decided that this program would be universal, that is to say that it would be paid to everyone reaching the age of eligibility, regardless of their income.

When it started, 41 years ago, the OAS Program was being financed by a special tax called Old Age Security Tax. The government collected this tax with the personal income tax, the corporate income tax and the sales tax. The revenues were transferred to a special account, the Old Age Security Fund.

In 1972, as part of a fiscal reform, the Old Age Security Tax was integrated with the general tax. In 1975, the Old Age Security Fund was transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Since then, we have all forgotten that people had paid all their lives into this program, hoping to receive payments in their older years. They planned their retirement with that money in mind and, despite the heartless people across the floor, private pension plans negotiated with employers took this into consideration. The rate of taxation for this program which was 2 per cent in 1952 had risen to 4 per cent in 1972 and, according to established taxation policies, higher income earners have paid proportionally more into the plan.

This is why the decision taken in 1989 to tax-back the OAS payments of senior citizens having an income over $50,000 outraged those who had contributed to the program, in good faith, for almost 40 years.

Taxpayers who have been paying and are still paying specific and visible taxes in preparation for their retirement feel that they are entitled to get them back. Old age pension is not a privilege nor a handout, it is the repayment of a debt society owes them.

People over 65 are far from being a privileged and rich group. Forty per cent of them are eligible to receive the guaranteed income supplement which keeps them at the poverty level. For 72 per cent of female seniors and 50 per cent of male seniors,

old age pension benefits and the guaranteed income supplement become an essential source of income.

I will say for the benefit of members opposite that, in 1991, 47 per cent of women over 65 and 18 per cent of men in that same age group had an income of less than $10,000. Since the poverty line is set at $17,000, one must conclude that nearly half the female seniors in this beautiful country live below the poverty line. Only 5 per cent of senior citizens make over $50,000 a year.

It is time to dispel the myth that senior citizens are rich and have a grandiose and opulent lifestyle. Only a very happy few can afford it. For the vast majority of seniors, old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement are the only source of income they have.

Thanks to such support measures, the quality of life and the situation of senior citizens have been greatly improved, even though they are far from perfect. Year after year, senior citizens are making up an increasingly larger portion of the population. It is estimated that the elderly population will increase by 40 per cent in the next 15 years. The government would be better off focusing on the health and welfare of our seniors, instead of shunting them aside, as this Liberal government seems to want to do.

Such a move would prove costly to society. By cutting assistance to seniors, the government will only ensure that hospitals fill up faster and that health care costs increase. The government must respect senior citizens and recognize their contributions to our society.

Instead of seeing them as an ideal scapegoat for its deficit reduction aims, the Liberal government should view them as an untouchable group.

Forty years ago, the government signed a social contract, agreeing to redistribute the moneys collected from contributors once they reached 65 years of age. Now this Liberal government is trying to get out of this contract by channelling the funds elsewhere, all because it has mismanaged its own affairs.

Seniors worked hard all their lives, secure in the knowledge that part of their income was being set aside for their golden years. Senior citizens are the pioneers who built our country, who made sacrifices and who suffered to give us what we now enjoy today.

Quebec owes its system of caisses populaires, one of the best in the world, to its seniors who were there from the very beginning and who believed and participated in this venture. We owe a great deal to these courageous people who were also visionaries. Our seniors were the ones who raised the children who now, as adults, are running our businesses. They are the ones who fought the battles, and won the victories on which we can build today for the future.

Canada owes a lot to seniors for their efforts. The least the Liberal government should do is respect them and maintain the benefits they have earned.

That is why I tabled so far in this House petitions signed by almost 3,000 seniors from the Quebec City region who strongly deplore the recent measures taken by the Liberal government. I ask, as stated in Motion No. 289 that I presented today, that the government withdraw the measure to reduce the age credit that it introduced in its most recent budget, and retain the Old Age Security Program and the Canada Pension Plan in their present forms.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity on behalf of the government to clarify the measure proposed in our February budget regarding the old age credit.

This is an issue deserves better than partisan politics, sacred cow logic and misinformation because the challenge of an aging population is very real for every region of this country.

The hon. member's motion states quite bluntly that we plan to reduce this credit and he implies that the old age security program and Canada pension plan are being altered. Let us deal with the facts.

To start, the budget contained no changes to old age security and the CPP. Here the member's motion is no more than unfortunate fearmongering. Next, simply put, budget action on the age credit means there is no reduction for three-quarters of seniors, about three million people with incomes under $25,921.

I want to be very clear on this. This budget measure will have no effect on the majority of low-income seniors. However, some seniors will indeed be affected by this measure.

I would like to remind the House of what the finance minister announced in his last budget. The current age credit provides special tax relief for all Canadians subject to tax 65 years of age and older, regardless of their income. This includes 200,000 seniors with personal incomes over $50,000. I am talking about personal and not family income.

If we want to preserve a social safety net that protects those who really need it while reducing the deficit and debt burden that translates into ever increasing taxes for all Canadians, we cannot continue to subsidize the wealthiest in our society.

That is why the budget provides for a gradual reduction of the age credit for taxpayers with net personal incomes over $25,921.

As a result the credit which reduces federal taxes for a senior by just over $600 a year will be reduced for some 800,000 people with incomes over the set mark. Of this group the credit will be eliminated for some 200,000 seniors, 5 per cent of the total with yearly incomes over $50,000.

It is true that the budget announced a policy paper will be released this year that will examine the challenges and opportunities posed by our aging society. The government indicated that this paper among other things would examine what changes are required to the national pension system to make it financially sustainable.

I find it ironic and insulting to all Canadians, especially seniors, that here we have a member dedicated to the dissolution of our country with all the chaos and cost that would entail and that same member has sanctimoniously advanced a motion demanding the preservation of key elements of that country's social safety net. Obviously some status quos are more equal than others.

I cannot prejudge what will be in the government's policy paper on an aging society but it is absurd to demand today that something so important as old age security be retained ever more unchanged when the pressures of an aging society are themselves changing at a rapid clip.

Let me remind the member of some more of those basic facts that no Canadian dare overlook. Because people are on average living longer and having fewer children, our population is aging. The proportion of people over age 65 will almost double over the next 40 years from 12 per cent today to 23 per cent in the year 2030. This will have real fiscal consequences. It is estimated that this evolution will demand that the contribution rate under CPP be pushed up from 5.2 per cent of eligible income to 13 per cent by the year 2030. That is almost a triple increase in the burden on employers and working age Canadians, a prospective increase that will compound a tax burden most people already feel is excessive.

Given this outlook I again see this motion as being absurd in trying to bind the government's hands by demanding that we retain the existing system that would prevent any action to improve and preserve the old age security system and the Canada pension plan.

That is not surprising. I doubt if the hon. member wants to see anything that would improve things for all Canadians, including seniors who have spent their lives, building a country that the United Nations has again identified as the best place to live in the world.

I passionately believe that one of the most sacred responsibilities any nation has, any government has, is to the senior citizens who have built and shaped that nation. Those facing economic hardship have a priority call on the best support that we can afford. However this respect and responsibility means that we must do what is needed to ensure that we can deliver this support consistently and securely in the years ahead. Those years will be years when the number of seniors grow dramatically.

The only way to resolve these dual demands for appropriate assistance today and to ensure that government can provide assistance tomorrow, this government-the government of a united Canada-has to ensure that our fiscal house is put in order. The budget did that by wide ranging action to set the deficit on a path down to just 3 per cent of GDP. Beyond that we are committed to balancing the books in the medium term.

Income testing of the old age credit is one part of that fiscal action. It reflects the fact that our $500 billion public debt is a national problem and that the solution demands actions that will touch on many Canadians in all regions. Again let me remind the House that for every dollar of fiscal improvement on the tax side, our budget took five dollars out of action on the spending side. Our actions, like those affecting some seniors, were carefully balanced to ensure we do everything possible to protect those in real need.

In conclusion, I see this motion as nothing more than an attempt to play cheap politics with Canada's senior citizens. It misrepresents government action and it fearmongers, and that is a shame. It supports a status quo without recognizing the shifts that are taking place in society. For all these reasons it merits our dismissal.

Canadians, senior citizens as well as those not yet facing the exigencies of retirement age, are willing to pay certain prices to ensure that this country remains the best place on earth to live. With this government at the helm it will.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that last speech was so emotional it almost brought tears to my eyes. In particular, hearing the government is going to get its fiscal house in order I think the tears were at the humour.

During the last election the Liberal candidates said those bad Reformers are going to make two classes of seniors by determining what their income is and then provide benefits based on that determination. Means testing they called it.

Here we are after the election looking at the Liberal government providing a means test for seniors by developing a formula for determining an individual's age tax credit. I wonder when Canadians will hear the truth from the traditional parties during an election. During an election on the one hand they say one thing; on the other hand after the election they do what they want to do. Such is the case once again.

Reformers at least were up front with the senior citizens indicating that we would preserve the benefits of non-contributory social programs, like old age security, for Canadians whose household income is below the average Canadian family income of $54,000 a year. We also committed to reduce and eliminate old age security benefits for households above the Canadian average income of $54,000 a year.

Crazy, said the Liberals. Foul, said the Liberals. Unfair, said the Liberals. Here we are on the last day of May 1994 and the Liberals propose the following. For the 1995 and subsequent taxation years, they are going to reduce the individual's age tax credit by 15 per cent of the amount, if any, by which the individual's income for the year exceeds $25,921. That is a means test.

For the 1994 taxation year by the lesser of $1,741 or 7.5 per cent of the amount, if any, by which the individual's income for the year exceeds $25,921. That is a means test.

The only word I can think of that applies to those who say one thing and do another is hypocrisy, and it does sound familiar.

That being said, this reduction or change is somewhat progressive and administered in a similar fashion to other tax credits such as the child tax benefit. The measure will not affect 75 per cent of seniors who have incomes below the $25,921 threshold. Seniors with incomes between $25,000 and $49,000 will lose a portion of their credit and those with incomes above $49,134 will lose it completely.

Means testing is very much in line with Reform principles. These types of measures should be supported because they are a step toward better fiscal management. The idea behind this measure is similar to our clawback recommendations for seniors collecting old age security while having incomes above the average national family income.

The tax credit is mostly used by seniors who have substantial savings in RRIFs, RRSPs and other investments that yield dividends. There is no reason other than political to provide further preferential treatment via tax credits. Rather than simply using personal income as the base for reducing the tax credit, the government should implement family income as the measure, especially since this tax credit is transferable to a spouse. Further, many low income seniors live within a high income household. It is time that the federal government started distributing benefits based on need.

That reminds me of what happened in the House today as we disclosed in question period that this government is providing old age security and the supplement, Canada pension and GST refunds to people while they are in prison.

If you want to look at means testing, if you want to look at why we distribute benefits to people, I question very much a government that would provide to killers, to people who have raped our women, old age security in addition to their housing, their food, their recreation, their training, and yet expect seniors of our country to live only on old age security. Maybe the government should have a look at their own policies again and distribute benefits based on need.

Currently $1.7 billion goes to seniors via old age security who have personal incomes over $50,000. If we considered household income this number would be $2.6 billion a year. Seniors in this income range also receive $3.5 billion in Canada pension by household. Clearly the tax credit can be reduced.

Most people would agree that seniors with high incomes should not be getting these payments when they could be better used to help the truly in need or used toward debt reduction or tax relief.

The "old" old age security and Canada pension exemplifies the problem that is inherent in our political system today. Resources are not distributed on the basis of merit or need but on political preference. How unfortunate for Canada.

In summation, we agree with the means test, not the one proposed, but we are getting there. Therefore we are not in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Québec-Est in which, among other things, it demands that the old age security program and the Canada pension plan be maintained in their present forms.

To begin, let me assure the House that the government has absolutely no intention of reducing old age security pensions for current seniors. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development have stated this clearly on numerous occasions.

As well it is important to remember that the February budget included annual increases in old age security expenditures. The total expenditures for 1993-94 were in the order of $19.9 billion. In 1995-96 these will grow to approximately $21.4 billion.

I should add that the government understands very well the importance of these programs to Canada's seniors, especially given the fact that in 1991 approximately 40 per cent of the income of seniors was made up of old age security and Canada-Quebec pension plan benefits. To suggest that the government might somehow sacrifice the standard of living of seniors by massive cuts strikes me as extremely irresponsible.

At the same time society does change and so do the needs which our social programs must address. One trend likely to impact on social programs is our aging population.

Over the next 40 years the proportion of people in our country over the age of 65 will double as well as the proportion of those age 65 and over will increase even more quickly, doubling by the year 2011. By 2031 the number of people over 65 compared with the number of working age Canadians will fall from one in five to one in three.

Clearly these realities must be addressed. To this end the government is studying these issues and will shortly release a paper on the challenges and opportunities posed by our aging society.

This paper will address the full range of issues relating to our aging population and will examine what must be done by governments, employers, working age individuals and families to plan for their future. It will examine the changing roles and needs of our seniors as Canadians live longer and healthier lives. It will look at services and labour market issues and whether changes are required to the public pension system to ensure it remains sustainable. It will also examine the current tax treatment of private savings for retirement.

We all know that planning for an aging society cannot be done overnight. We simply cannot engage in short term thinking to such long term issues. With this in mind the government has committed itself to examining these long term trends so as to ensure that future generations of Canadians will have the same level of security currently enjoyed by our seniors.

To do this it will be necessary to define a set of efficient and compassionate programs to meet our future needs. The release of the discussion paper in the coming months will be the first step.

Of course, any future programs must continue to be fiscally responsible and fully sustainable. These are fundamental issues and to ensure success the government will need the active and informed participation of all Canadians as it seeks to arrive at a consensus on the direction that policies and programs should take.

For instance, older Canadians have declared that they want to be involved in developing solutions. Their voices must be heard as must those of other concerned Canadians. As we move forward with this review, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have a great deal to be proud of. Our current programs are rooted in a great tradition which is the basis of the caring society Canada has become today.

Today seniors are financially more secure than those of any previous generation. With the planned development of Canada's income security system over the past few decades there has been a substantial decrease in the incidence of poverty among older Canadians. For example, between 1980 and 1992 the incidence of low income among seniors fell from one-third to less than 21 per cent. While single elderly women continue to have a much higher incidence of low income, 53 per cent in 1992, this figure was down significantly from 70 per cent in 1980.

The situation is by no means perfect. Overall seniors incomes are still modest. In a recent survey on aging and independence more than 60 per cent of those between ages of 65 and 69 years named government pensions as their main source of personal income. Still all Canadians can be proud of the network of government programs that have helped to improve the standard of living of seniors in Canada. For instance, the basic OAS pension together with the guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance ensure financial security, especially for the poorest Canadians as they approach and enter retirement.

The Canada pension plan together with its sister program, the Quebec pension plan, is the social insurance program to which working Canadians contribute. It provides not only retirement income but a measure of income protection against disability and death. The Canada-wide portable coverage these programs give is a great example of what federal and provincial governments can achieve by working together.

Together these programs have made a significant contribution to the economic security of Canada's seniors. Although there is an increasing number of people living well beyond age 65 years, fewer are living in poverty. Proof of the success of this network of programs becomes clear every month as millions of people receive their pension benefits from the government reliably and on time.

In Canada in the late 20th century we can be proud of the initiative and the planning which almost 30 years ago laid the groundwork for the satisfying life of retirement which more and more Canadians are enjoying.

This is not to say that our retirement income system does not need examination, review and revision. In the past we have regularly examined our income security programs, reviewed them in light of changes in our society, and revised them to respond to those changes. We must be prepared to consider changes as they become necessary. We must maintain a sound system based on the foundations of the past and responsive to the needs of the future.

I conclude by urging all members of the House to be active participants in this process of examining our current system, deciding what we as a society want and putting in place a strategy for tomorrow.

By working together we will ensure that a great tradition, our heritage and our commitment as a caring society, will continue into the 21st century.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Québec-Est has put before this House a motion which reflects the opinion held by seniors in my riding, in Quebec and in Canada. By reducing the age credit, the federal government is attacking the most vulnerable members of our society, because the majority of seniors have very modest incomes.

As spokesperson for seniors associations and organizations, I fully support my colleague's motion against the reduction of the age credit. The budget proposal is to reduce the age credit for individuals with net incomes exceeding $25,921. The age credit will be reduced at a rate of 15 per cent of an individual's net income exceeding $25,921. Senior with incomes over $49,134 will no longer receive any age credit.

According to the Department of Finance, this measure will affect 800,000 seniors out of 2.6 million. This group includes 600,000 seniors with incomes between $25,921 and $49,134, and 200,000 seniors with incomes over $49,134. Are we to understand from this measure that the government considers seniors with incomes of $25,000 as rich? Whatever little efforts are made to reduce government spending are made on the backs of the disadvantaged.

The federal and provincial governments have a mandate to provide services to protect and promote the well-being of all Canadians. The governments must also work together with consumers and representatives from the non-profit sector, the industry and the business community to develop policies and programs. They must project a positive and realistic image of seniors.

The Income Security Programs Branch is responsible for the administration of old age security, the Canada Pension Plan and the child tax benefit. The branch employees are presently working in regional data processing control stations to approve requisitions for payment and keep the files of seniors and families who receive children benefits up to date.

In Le Droit of Ottawa-Hull for Thursday, February 24, 1994, the Association de défense des droits des retraités expressed outrage about the federal budget, which abolished the personal income tax exemption for seniors earning between $25,000 and $49,000 a year. Yvette Brunet, president of that association which defends pensioners' rights, said that it was odious and scandalous. Coming after election promises of tax fairness, the budget shows that this government does not really want change. The wealthiest people are still spared by the tax department. Remember the tax shelters. Furthermore, the government is also trying hard to reduce services for seniors.

On May 10, I asked the minister responsible for seniors a question about the plan to install voice mail to answer inquiries from seniors. The minister simply told us about the speed of the proposed service. I explained that many seniors are reluctant to use such a service and they have expressed this opinion clearly through the representative of the Federation of Senior Citizens.

On May 11, 1994, I was at it again. I asked the following question in the House:

-Why does the federal government insist on attacking senior citizens, considering that most of them find it very difficult to deal with a system that is so impersonal?

The answer from the Minister of Human Resources Development was disarming and unacceptable. He said that this program would be more efficient and more personalized and give seniors better service.

A centralized telephone answering system using voice mail to answer all seniors' inquiries about government programs will have a huge impact on the quality of services provided to seniors.

EDS Limited, which never consulted the public, was hired by the government at a cost of $220 million to make this change. EDS Limited intends to reduce services to clients who want to speak directly to an officer. Seniors will have to deal with an answering machine. The required listening and communication skills will no longer be available.

The few representatives working in the region will become inaccessible and permanent offices will disappear. Employees working for income security programs receive calls from seniors asking them to phone, on their behalf, the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec, which uses a touch-tone recorded questionnaire. These people complain that they do not get the information they need.

EDS Limited itself admits that this service will reduce direct communications with agents. Because of this, seniors must increasingly rely on themselves and no one else. These people have good reasons to worry and even to rebel against unfair treatment. They want to be considered like full-fledged citizens and they want to be respected in every way, including from a tax point of view.

Seniors have gained a lifelong experience. They have helped build this country. They have the right to be informed in a human way to be able to support themselves. They rely on their savings, investments, private pensions, public fund transfers, and sometimes even on the generosity of their relatives. They are confronted with the rise in the cost of living. Making access to

information more difficult and reducing financial help to seniors will not improve their quality of life.

The government must ensure that the information on services and programs for seniors is easily accessible.

A quick reminder: the previous government had targeted the Canada Pension Plan, but the Prime Minister of the time, Brian Mulroney, had to revise his position. The Ottawa lady who became an instant celebrity in 1985 with her famous "Good bye Charlie Brown", when the first Mulroney budget was tabled, is proof that seniors are not going to be fooled and that they will not be scapegoats as regards the national debt, while the government is wasting public money.

Take family trusts for example. What is the government waiting for to tax these trusts which only benefit rich families? Why target the poor who have worked hard all their lives? The government must promote and facilitate independence among seniors by providing them the support they deserve through income security and services geared to their specific needs.

Seniors have contributed throughout their lives to a universal plan.

Obviously, they expect all Canadians reaching the required age to receive those benefits, whatever their income may be.

Right now, 72 per cent of all retired women and 50 per cent of retired men are receiving OAS benefits or some income supplement. Only 5 per cent of older Canadians have an income over $50,000. Life expectancy is increasing. These additional years must be fulfilling and enjoyable for our elderly.

To efficiently maintain the quality of life for our elderly, we must provide them with the tools they need to get all the appropriate information. Finally, I would like to reiterate a request I made during a speech in the House of Commons, on February 3, 1994, and which boils down to this: "Why is there no secretary of state or department responsible for issues relating to seniors, like the one we had under the previous government, since this issue is so vitally important?"

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The period provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 1994, I put the following question to the Minister of Human Resources Development, which was preceded by the following comment: "Yesterday, this minister clearly indicated to this House that the Atlantic fishery workers unions had been consulted about the individual contracts that workers must sign, thus committing themselves to undergo training or do community work in order to receive their benefits. We checked and the unions were never consulted on this".

My question to the minister was: "How can the minister reconcile the statement he made yesterday in the House with the confirmation that was given to me afterwards by the head of the fishery workers union, who said he had never been consulted on the issue of the individual contracts?" I later met the president of the fishery workers union who again confirmed that he had never been consulted about this matter.

My question was: How can the minister reconcile his answer with my information? I expected an answer that would at least address the question, but that is like trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. What I got was a model of political rhetoric, not from the Minister of Human Resources Development but from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I therefore want to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the lack of openness of the government and the ministers. Some explanations are in order about the issue of obliging workers who participate in the pilot project to sign a contract in exchange for the benefits promised by the minister, something people find disturbing.

If this pilot project leads to further projects, people certainly had the right to know whether there was any consultation. The answer was no. This government will have to learn to be more open, because otherwise, how can it proceed with its reform of social programs?

I have a very good reason for raising this issue again this evening. There are communities all over Canada where workers, like the fisheries workers, have lost all hope, except that their numbers are not as high as in the fisheries industry.

So how can we help those workers? Can we help them only by making this help compulsory, when in many cases they are older than average? There is a very large number-24,000-between the ages of 25 and 49, but many, in fact more than 6,000, are at least 50 years old. Now workers who are between the ages of 35 and 49 need to know what they will get in the end, because we cannot pay them a pittance for a few years and oblige them to take training that is a dead end. We have to ensure that the community has the resources to create jobs, to help them create businesses and to attract businesses, so there is some hope for the future. Compulsory training, clean-up programs and com-

munity assistance programs as such are useless if workers and their communities are not helped to find real jobs.

My question was: How can the minister reconcile that? There was no consultation, and that is really too bad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that extensive consultation took place in the development of the TAGS program, including the fishermen, food and allied workers associated with the sectoral councils.

The people in our region are really looking for hope and opportunity. It is for this reason that this government has engaged in what I consider a rational and reasonable approach to reshaping the economy of that particular region.

Under TAGS there are at least a dozen adjustment measures that individual participants can use to help themselves adjust to their circumstances.

Throughout the consultation process it was made clear that active participation of the fishermen and plant workers affected by the groundfish crisis would be a requirement for ongoing income support. However, what we heard from the fishermen and the plant workers is that they wanted opportunities such as training from literacy to university levels. We have opportunities with the participation in green projects involving working and learning activities within their communities. No matter which option is chosen, however, participants will be required to take an active role in helping themselves.

The intent to require participants to be actively involved in their adjustment was clear from the start. In effect, each person applying for the benefits of TAGS commits to this process by signing the application form.

The concern raised by the hon. member for Mercier did not relate to the principle of expecting participants to actively take part in the program. Rather the question related to the administrative means used to ensure that participants continue to actively pursue their adjustments while receiving income support.

On May 6, 1994 a special representative of the Minister of Human Resources Development met with officials of the organization. These discussions provided a satisfactory resolution to the concerns raised for all participants. There will not be an administrative social contract which individual participants will be required to sign. The signed application form will suffice.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on May 25 I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to take the $1 million, indeed over a million dollars, that his department plans to spend on promoting and advertisements in relation to the social policy review and redirect it to those young Canadians who are living in poverty, those young families that are clearly in need now.

The minister's response did not address the real issue and that is what will this government do to help those most in need?

There is a crisis in our country, a crisis of poverty that is undermining the fabric of our society and, alas, that is increasing. Those Canadians most in need of assistance from this government are young people, young families and women.

On May 25, the same day that I posed this question to the minister, a report entitled The Outsiders was released. It was very disturbing. It indicated that the rising divorce rate has led to further complications among young families as one in four metro Toronto families is headed by a single parent. The report also notes that single parent families have the lowest levels of social assistance. Even among those single parents who work poverty rates are twice as high as those of two parent families with a single earner. I want to ask what the government will do to help these single parent families.

Recently a report from the United Nations development program gives Canada high marks for education. It says that Canada is the number one place to live, and we are all proud of that. However, when human development by the United Nations is measured separately for males and females Canada drops from first spot to ninth spot largely because of the wide income disparity. The report indicates that the adjusted real income rate for Canadian women is 51.5 per cent of that for men.

I want to ask this government will it leave people behind? There is the over $1 million proposed to be spent on advertising; more recently, $55 million to be spent on advertising dedicated to help Canadians to stop smoking. While we would like to see Canadians stop smoking the proof is very fragile in terms of what that advertising budget will do.

This government was elected on the faith that it would create jobs for Canadians. It has created jobs for Canadians, in particular those Canadians who are in the advertising industry.

The infrastructure program is a good program but is largely directed to jobs for men.

I want to ask the member responding for the minister what this government is prepared to do besides advertising, creating jobs for advertisers. What is it prepared to do for those young families living in poverty, the single women who are raising families, a large majority living in poverty? Why not act? Why just advertise?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention and I look forward to answering her question.

There are too many people living in poverty today, far too many people with the proper skills in Canada to make us competitive, far too many young people facing the problems and challenges associated with transition from school to work, the 1.2 million children who live in poverty in Canada.

This is precisely the reason why we as a government have taken on the challenge to modernize and restructure Canada's social security system, a challenge that past governments have run away from.

On January 31 of this year the Minister of Human Resources Development introduced a three stage process to the House that would result in new a new social security system for Canada which would address the labour market strategy challenges that we face and would address the concerns cited by the hon. member.

We are taking interim measures to address the issue of unemployment. That is why as a result of the SEED program this summer 60,000 young people will be employed. That is why we are reducing the UI premiums, so that small business can generate more jobs, so that we can generate more jobs.

We were elected on a mandate to create jobs. We are well on our way to doing that. Not only that, we are taking on the very important challenge to modernize and restructure Canada's social security system so that fewer Canadians are faced with the challenges and the plight of living in poverty.

We have only been in government for approximately six months. Our record to date on the measures we have taken so far show that this government truly cares about the lives of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 7 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)