Debates of May 8th, 1995

Income Tax Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), a recorded division on the proposed motion is deferred until the time of adjournment.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Old Age Security Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There are 17 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-54, an act to amendment the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to all the other motions in the group.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4, 13 and 15 will be grouped for debate. The vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 13 and 15.

Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 12 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose the motions in the first group to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-54, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 16, on page 1.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

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

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be agreement that the motions that have been grouped together under the first group be deemed to have been read in order to allow more time for members to make speeches instead of reading the motions into the record.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on page 21, with the following:

"section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any".

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on page 22, with the following:

"section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or subsection, and the Commissioner of".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 22, with the following:

"decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may".

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 12, on page 29, with the following:

"(2) Subsection 108(3) of the Act is".

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 33, with the following:

"53. Subsections 35(1)".

Madam Speaker, I now address the House 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.

In Motion No. 1, I propose the following amendment:

That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 1.(2), which reads as follows: "Review Tribunal" means a Canada Pension Plan- Old Age Security Review Tribunal established under section 82 of the Canada Pension Plan.

This amendment put forward by the official opposition is aimed at keeping separate the appeal processes of the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program.

Bill C-54 integrates the appeal processes of the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Program. Yet, the auditor general said in his report that the two-tiered appeal process for Old Age Security permits the satisfactory settlement of the few

cases there are. The process is simple, fast and informal, and cases are heard in the regions where the appellants live.

As for the Canada Pension Plan's three-tiered appeal process, the auditor general criticized it quite openly. So why propose to integrate both processes and use the Canada Pension Plan's process deemed deficient by the auditor general?

The government is not simplifying the appeal process in any way. On the contrary, client services will not be improved one bit with these measures.

Under clause 34, page 20, the first level of appeal of the Canada Pension Plan will become a "reconsideration". Under clause 16, page 8, the reconsideration which is presently optional in the case of Old Age Security will become a mandatory minister's review.

Under clause 35(1), page 21, the Review Tribunals of the Canada Pension Plan will be authorized to hear appeals relating to Old Age Security and, under clause 35(4), page 22, appeals that were directed to the former review committees of the Canada Pension Plan.

Finally, the Pension Appeals Board will be authorized to appoint temporary members. At the present time, someone who is dissatisfied with a decision made in accordance with the Canada Pension Plan is entitled to three levels of appeal.

The first level appeals are directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. The second level appeals are heard by the Review Tribunals established in accordance with the Act. Finally, the third level appeals are heard by the Pension Appeals Board.

In 1993-94, there were 23,046 first level appeals for an increase of 0.5 per cent compared to the previous year. Of that number, 83 per cent concerned disability benefits. A total of 27,077 appeals were processed during those two years.

Also, 3,300 second level appeals were filed. Of that number, 2,675 were dealt with. During the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Pension Appeals Board received 498 new benefits appeals made under section 83, chapter C-8 of the Canada Pension Plan. It heard 274 of those appeals. Moreover, at the request of one of the parties, the board suspended 55 appeals to be heard later.

The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, does not believe that streamlining appeals made under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan is an improvement. To be consistent with the proposed amendment to Motion No. 1, I present the following amendment to Motion No. 8:

"That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting clause 25 because it combines the Old Age Security appeal process with the Canada Pension Plan appeal process".

Therefore the following clause, clause 25 must be deleted: "The definition of "Review Tribunal" in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan is replaced by the following: "Review Tribunal" means a Canada Pension Plan-Old Age Security Review Tribunal established under section 82".

To be consistent with the amendment to Motion No. 1, Motion No. 9 should read as follows:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25, on page 21, with the following:

"section 84(2), or, subject to the regulations, any".

The purpose is to eliminate any reference to appeals to the Review Tribunal.

For the sake of consistency, Motion No. 10 should read:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 20, on page 22, with the following:

"section 81 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or subsection, and the Commissioner of".

To be consistent, Motion No. 11 should read as follows:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 22, with the following:

"decision made in respect of an appeal under sub-section 84(2), may".

Consistency is needed regarding Motion No. 14 to keep the appeal process separate:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 29, with the following:

"(2) Section 108 of the Act."

Motion No. 16 also refers to appeals made under the Old Age Security Act:

"That Bill C-54 be amended by deleting Clause 50".

The same applies to Motion No. 17:

"That Bill C-54, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 33, with the following:

"53. Subsections 35(1)".

I will leave it to the member for Mercier to explain the official opposition's amendment to Motion No. 3, which goes along the same lines as my proposed amendments, since it deletes clause 16 in Bill C-54, because on one hand, this clause provides for a ninety day period before appealing to the minister against a decision and, on the other hand, it states that the minister may stay payment of the benefits during the appeal process.

Moreover, I have a proposed amendment to Motion No. 12 which is in agreement with my colleague's.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Madam Speaker, I thought I would take the opportunity to reply to the hon. member.

Frankly, the behaviour of the Bloc opposition on this bill has been to produce the most puzzling, curious, strange, unorthodox and bizarre set of amendments I have seen in a long time in this House.

It was not so long ago that the hon. gentleman was on his feet suggesting problems were being encountered by seniors having to make application on an annual basis to receive their benefits. The bill before us tries to expedite that by allowing for automatic renewal when we have all the information we need. But the hon. gentleman is now introducing an amendment to force people to go back to the old system of having to make an annual application again. He has stood logic on its head. He has absolutely reversed the position he has taken in the House. It is absolutely and totally contrary to the very words he was expressing in the House only a few short weeks ago. He said there was an impediment, a problem being faced. He says he does not know. He does not know. If he had understood the bill he would not be presenting such absurd amendments.

It seems he is saying now that people with spousal benefits will be required to reapply for their application, which will affect 20,000 people per year, rather than giving them the automatic renewal we propose. Madam Speaker, do you understand that? Can you contemplate the rationale, the reason the hon. member would want to impose upon people eligible for spousal benefit the requirement to constantly go back and re-engage, reapply, go through the rigmarole, go through the bureaucratic red tape? I do not understand. If he were some kind of bureaucratic menschen who takes great delight in having people jump through hoops, then maybe it would make some sense.

Bill C-54 is a clear example of how we have taken into account the problems faced by people over the past several years in ensuring that they can have renewals. We are now attempting to eliminate those problems, especially in the case of the spousal benefit, which is available for those who are 60 to 64.

If we have a female client whose birthday is in June, let us assume she would also qualify for the OAS, she clearly has some needs. If the motion proposed by the hon. member were accepted, that person would be forced to obtain, complete, and return all application forms to Human Resources Development around the month of December, before her birthday. We know how busy things get, how much time there is to delay.

In other words, the hon. gentleman who proposes this amendment has some kind of perverse delight in forcing people to fill out forms, go to offices, reapply, and go through all the paper work. It must be a strange form of entertainment for him, but it certainly makes no sense when it comes to healthy people. They will still get their money, but it will take longer, it will be more inconvenient, it will be more bureaucratic, and it will cost the government more money to go through the forms.

Madam Speaker, I do not know. You figure; I cannot. I simply do not understand such tortuous reasoning from the hon. gentleman that he would propose an amendment that would force people to engage in this kind of jumping through hoops simply for no reason at all. When we look at the bill with the whole range of amendments proposed by hon. members opposite, they are giving the message that they do not want to help people gain access to their old age benefits without fuss or bother.

This is a clear example that there is a big mistake, that the Bloc Quebecois is proposing the wrong measures for senior citizens who are only asking for an efficient system. Yet, the Bloc is proposing, in these amendment, a process which is very complicated, very difficult and which makes no sense.

For the sake of the convenience of our seniors, especially the 20,000 women on social benefits who would want to be able to make full and complete access, not only is this amendment absurd, but it would be counterproductive; it would be against their interests. Therefore, it deserves to be defeated.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on this bill.

As our country moves into the 21st century, many significant changes are occurring, changes that are of great concern to the citizens of our country. First, the demographics are changing quite dramatically. We have an aging population. In twenty years there will be three to four workers for every retiree.

We are in a fiscal crisis. That crisis will only get worse. This government, as have preceding governments, has not had the courage to deal with that onerous problem, which seeks to sink the social programs that we have come to cherish in our country, social programs such as OAS, CPP, and UI. It is against this backdrop of crushing tax burdens to virtually every citizen that we see this bill come forth.

It is therefore with great consternation, justified as it is, that our people on social programs, the aged, the infirm, and the poor ponder their future, most of whom have indeed worked very hard to be the backbone of this country. We saw today many of

those members here who have fought and given their blood and their soul so that we may enjoy the freedom we have today in this the most beautiful country in the world. Some are well off but others, as I said before, just scrape by. This can similarly be said of our social programs, which are indeed scraping by also.

All the people we have spoken about who are relying on our social programs ask themselves if they will have enough to survive. This is indeed a common denominator, whether we are speaking of someone from British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or New Brunswick.

Bill C-54, an act to amend OAS, CPP, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the UI act, and so on, is conspicuous not for what it does but for what it fails to do. It is an opportunity lost as we head into the era of the implosion of our social programs, for there are no great innovative ideas in this program.

What is required is to put forth social programs on firm fiscal footing. That is not what this bill does at all. Rather, it is window dressing. While it will save the taxpayers some $10 million, which is to be applauded, it does nothing when one looks at the overall spending of social programs of some $80 billion.

One of the great fallacies of Canadian politics is the myth that the Reform Party is against social programs and the poor. I recently had a conversation with a member of this House who said to me "You in the Reform Party are really not for the poor at all, are you?" Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact I say that we are the only political party in the House that wants to ensure that the poor and the needy are taken care of in this country. As I said before, the opposite is true, from the barbs we receive across the way.

Every other party engages in a fiscal program that, due to its inability to get government program spending under control, crushes the ability of the government to pay for the social programs it offers to the Canadian people in a mythological fashion.

Today government spending in general is about $120 billion. Because of the budget being put down now-and I do not lay the blame completely as the government's fault, because preceding governments have contributed significantly to it-what the Canadian public does not understand, and what has not been communicated adequately to it, is that in three years' time there will not be $120 billion to spend, but rather $102 billion. Where will the money be cut? Where will it be found? Those who will suffer are those who are poor. Those who are rich will not suffer because they have the money to take care of themselves. We in this party always attempt to be constructive, not merely obstructionist.

Let us take a look at the big picture to see exactly what we are looking at. Old age security costs us $14.4 billion every year and is rising because of the demographic changes which I previously mentioned. GIS costs us $4.3 billion and is rising. CPP costs us $13.2 billion and UI costs us $19.1 billion and is rising. It is impossible to pay for that.

Therefore we in this party have always been of the mindset, and we have put forth time and time again, that we need to target our social programs to those truly in need. What is so wrong with removing the social payments from those people who are in the upper third income bracket? If we explain to the Canadian public that the money it receives is borrowed from its children and grandchildren it will be very reasonable and understand the situation cannot continue.

It is an absolute affront to engage in the generational blunder that we continue to foist upon coming generations by giving them a burden of debt which will significantly contribute to the negative environment in which they will live in the future.

Another thing we in the Reform Party wish to do is focus on the family and allow the family to take care of itself. Families are better than any government at doing that.

I ask my constituents what the biggest problem they have right now is. They are burdened with an unwieldy tax. Tax crushes their ability to take care of themselves, their children and other family members, particularly when they are in need. We should allow family members to take care of themselves. If we manage to invoke a tax decrease for them, and there are many ways to do that, they will be empowered to take care of themselves and their families.

It is interesting to look back at the early 1990s. The government of the day reduced taxes. What happened? Government revenues increased. What happened after that? The government of the day started to tax wildly; an orgy of taxation which included the GST.

When I visit the business community virtually every business person I speak to will say remove the GST. It is an unwieldy system as it stands. That money has to be found somewhere else. We do not advocate it being removed, we are saying streamline the GST, lower it, simplify it and there will be an added benefit because so much of it goes to bureaucracy in trying to manage the unwieldy taxation we have. Taxation in general, as I previously stated, is so unwieldy it is crushing the ability of Canadians to take care of themselves.

I implore the hon. minister who is here today to go to the Canadian public again. He should not rely on bureaucracy, the people who appear in committee or in his office. I ask him to go to the Canadian people. He should walk out there to ask Canadians what their concerns are. He should ask them how we

can improve the current situation so that the poor people of Canada and those who are bereft of hope can be taken care of. I implore the minister to do that. I know members of my party would be more than happy to help him to that end.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development was so happy to be able to hit the Bloc Quebecois that he did not read correctly the amendments that we are proposing. And to be able to hit even harder and with more gusto he is taking clause 2, instead of subclause (2) in clause 1.

The Minister of Human Resources Development who is going to speak afterwards should apologize to my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.

White hair is a sign of wisdom, because the amendment that we proposed is not the one that the minister mentioned. We are not opposed to speeding up the process, on the contrary. What we are opposed to, however, is senior citizens being required, without good reason, to deal with voice mail services. Yes, we are going to oppose part of these reforms, but before addressing the specifics of this bill, we have to say that it is presented as trivial, simply intended to streamline services for senior citizens or handicapped persons.

The truth is, under its trivial appearances, this bill contains provisions that we find very serious, because we believe that they open the door to abuse, and we are going to say so.

I proposed in these series of amendments that we revert to the current Act, under section 16, Reconsiderations and Appeals, because the new clause from this defender "extraordinaire" of Canada's senior citizens introduces a 90-day appeal period where there was none.

When we talk to senior citizens, seniors of all ages, it is important to remember to give them whatever time they need. We have to remember that these people often need help and are not able to reach the public servants who could give them access to a minister or an appeal board. So, we do not agree that there should be an appeal period, particularly since it is an amendment to the old legislation and we do not see why we should go backward like that.

Obviously, under the new amendment, the minister can allow a longer period for an appeal. He will decide whether there will be one or not. Generally speaking, under this bill, the minister will have a lot of discretion, and discretion in this context does not mean that he will not announce certain things, but that he will act as he pleases.

We think that where elderly persons and handicapped persons in particular are concerned, they must have as many avenues of redress as possible. They should not have to rely on the discretion of the minister, even if he is well intentioned and says that he wants to accelerate the process. The discretion is left to any minister who, at one point, could abuse this power.

Once again, I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to apologize for the harsh words he had for my colleague. I want him to know that he is not the only one who has ideas and that he is far from being the only one to come to the defence of the elderly. I do not want to question his intentions, but our role is to see to what excesses these amendments could lead. When one knows that the whole act is based on an application which will be handled by public servants over the phone, you have to be extremely vigilant. This is our responsibility. I would even go as far as to say that this is our duty.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, our concerns with this bill as it now stands with its proposed amendments relate to a closer examination of the bill which reveals some aspects of it are contrary to the public interest because they involve a reduction in bureaucratic accountability. Our proposed amendment is an attempt to correct the most flagrant of these violations of the public interest.

I will first speak on the proposed Bloc amendments. Grouping three motions deals with a combination of two review tribunals into one. At the present time there are two review tribunals, one under the old age security and one under the Canada pension plan. Bill C-54 proposes to combine the two. The Bloc motion is against the idea.

As Reformers we are against waste caused by duplicity and extra waste of time which will result in extra costs as well. As usual, when extra labour is involved taxpayers will find themselves involved in paying more taxes. I fear in this case it will be a waste of overall tax dollars. Hence, Reform is opposed to the Bloc motion to retain the two tribunals but is in favour of creating one panel from two. This suggests a more accountable spending of our tax dollars. Hence, less government is better government as I see it.

I will digress a bit and give an example. Government is expensive. Costs rise and we have more bureaucracy. It follows that if we try to eliminate unnecessary numbers even in the Chamber we do not have to increase the numbers of MPs to have good government. If we try to decrease the numbers we are looking at a government which will be just as effective, maybe even more.

Let us look at some of the statistics. According to my figures the United States has about 270 million people and about 435 representatives. We have 27 million people and 295 representatives.

I was recently in the United States talking to some American citizens, asking whether they feel they had adequate representation. They told me they felt adequately represented. I am coming back to less government which we are addressing today.

If the new electoral boundaries act becomes law we will have even more representatives in the House. I am aware that my province of British Columbia stands to benefit from the increase in numbers. However, when we look at the costs of roughly $500,000 per member for office budget, travel costs, telephone, salary, et cetera, it is an enormous cost to the taxpayer. If we can make do without that, I think we should.

If there is less government interference in Canadian lives it is more than possible Canadians will be happier. I have often heard expressed in my riding that people would like less interference by government in their lives. Consequently it follows that less government is better government. It will enable us to cut the fat.

I will use an example to help express my feelings. In March 1991 the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate made recommendations. In the report to the Senate and the House of Commons on matters of joint interest these recommendations include in general terms where savings could be found in five areas.

It suggested a greater collaboration between the two Houses on a wide range of matters; for instance, the Senate buses and the busses we use. We could have one system. Others included contracting out of various services, review and reduction of service levels, increased transparency of House expenditures and efficiency improvements.

Again, what am I talking about? We are returning to cost efficiency. We are returning to saving taxpayers money. I have to oppose the Bloc amendment and agree with the government one at this time, that we do condense and go to one overall body.

I make this comparison mainly to point out that wherever possible in government matters it is our responsibility as legislators to show accountability through cutting out duplication, no matter where it occurs. Taxpayers would feel we are making an effort to watch the spending of tax dollars while at the same time maintaining efficiency and responsibility.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Could I ask the member if she is debating Motions Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17?

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

I am on Motion No. 3 right now, Madam Speaker.

In answer to the Bloc proposal, I must conclude that we should address accountability and efficiency at the same time. Reformers prefer that one tribunal should operate within the existing moneys allotted to the Canadian pension plan tribunal. I would hope the government would address the wisdom of such a move.

Under clause 46 of the bill, the government wishes to credit into the Canada pension plan account extra money from the consolidated revenue fund to help administer the Canadian Pension Plan Act. Again I stress that Reformers would like to see this new tribunal function with the existing funding it currently employs.

If Canadians are having to make do with less and work harder for less there is no reason why a government tribunal should not find ways to do the same. These are hard times we are into today. While we would like to be optimistic, it is incumbent on us to reinforce in the Canadian electorate that we do care and are sincere in addressing cutbacks. Since it is the public's money being administered here there must be some accountability in the process.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the issue before us. I will focus quite distinctly on the motions in this group which the Bloc is proposing.

In this grouping we have an interesting juxtaposition of Liberal philosophy where the Bloc members want to maintain the two separate boards that are conducting reviews and the Liberals are proposing to combine the two existing groups into one.

The comment I will make is appropriate to the philosophy of the government. It is looking at who is administering the programs and trying to reduce these numbers, as it is in some other bills that are floating around these days.

The Liberals are talking about reducing the number of members on the board of the CBC, and other tribunals and appointed boards. They are reducing the number of people which is a move, in most instances, that could be applauded. However, one needs to ask the question whether it is being done arbitrarily and capriciously or whether it is actually based on a fair assessment of the workload. The important factor being omitted here is how many people can do the work efficiently.

The missing question, whether talking about the CBC board, this tribunal or any of the other boards it is proposed to reduce is, has there been a rational study of the actual amount of work that needs to be done? Also, what would be the actual savings accomplished by it?

The Bloc is proposing we keep these two boards separate. To the best of our knowledge the workload these people would be

carrying would be such that the amendment the Bloc is proposing is not justifiable. There should be one panel instead of two. There would be a certain degree of overlap and that overlap could be avoided if we were to combine them.

On a very broad spectrum, we need to address very carefully the administration of these social programs. As one of my colleagues already outlined, total government expenditures are some $160 billion a year, $40 billion of which is interest. The debt is continuing to grow. Even under the present Liberal's plan, we will still be adding $32.9 billion to the debt.

You do not have to be a great mathematician to compute that. If you add $30 billion at current interest rates, you will probably be adding in the neighbourhood of $3 billion to $5 billion a year in interest. As soon as you do that, there will be less money for social programs. It is $160 billion total, $40 billion of interest and interestingly a little more than $50 billion on the four main programs of old age security, Canada pension, guaranteed income supplement and UI. These programs need to be cut as well as the administration of them.

While we applaud the government's move to reduce the number of boards that do these reviews, we are reducing the crew members on the Titanic as it is most surely going down. It is a small and ever so gingerly taken step in the right direction but it does not address the real problem. We need to bring down total spending in these programs. It must be done dramatically. It must be done quickly so that we do not lose it all.

I want to say one other thing. Undoubtedly the Liberals as our opposition would be declaring: "The Reformers want to cut these programs". We do not. I have said this often. How I wish that the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that one would have been diligent in managing the fiscal affairs so that we did not have this huge debt.

If we did not have a debt so large that we are obligated to pay $40 to $45 billion per year on interest, we would have more than enough money to look after all the needs of all of these people. The numbers declare it. It is $52 billion for these four programs and $40 to $45 billion for interest.

We are talking about cutting these programs because we cannot cut the interest. It is not an option. If the previous governments would have been diligent in managing our affairs so that we would not have this debt load, we would be able to carry on with a very good solid social programs. Management is what is really critical here.

I encourage the members of the House to be opposed, with all due respect to my friends from the Bloc, to these amendments because we do achieve a small efficiency by going to a single board. At the same time I must emphasize strongly that it is not even the tip of the iceberg. It is one chip on the top of the tip of the iceberg. We are missing the whole point here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?