Reg Alcock

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the previous speaker for taking the time to review some of those issues because they underline one of the things I want to talk about in addressing this reorganization. Frankly I am a little astounded that when reading through the list of grants the member did not understand what people were attempting to do. People in business and in government throughout the country from coast to coast have recognized that we in Canada have built something profound, wonderful and strong. It gives us strength internationally that no other country in the world has.

We have recognized that in our diversity there is strength. I as an English Canadian married to a Polish Ukrainian person can celebrate what we bring to the country. At a time of globalism, at a time when we are reaching out to the entire world, we can build upon those strengths.

Professor Neil McDonald who lives in my riding is renowned throughout North America as an expert on the question of diversity. He points out that at a time when we are reaching across the ocean, when we are reaching into other countries of the world to build markets and build relationships, we have in Canada a vast resource of people who can work with us.

What is the member concerned about? Is it a $17,000 grant to talk about diversity and international trade to help build our balance of payments and support exports in the country? That does not sound terribly subversive to me.

Let me respond to a couple of points the member highlighted. Referring to models of health care, at a time when we are working so hard to strengthen our health care system and are supporting research into some models of health care it strikes me as something we should be celebrating, not criticizing.

Turning to violence in society, is the member saying she is afraid to look at it or that the government should not be taking action on such a critical social issue?

Referring to drama and education to foster understanding for students, as members and as a government we have a role to educate people, to help people from all parts of the country to understand what the country is really about. By fostering understanding of other groups we reduce tensions and reduce some of the violence in communities. Is this what the party opposite is opposed to?

Then parents for a model school. I did not select these things. This is what the member read into the record as examples of abuse. We are funding parents to help them look at building a model school promoting anti-racism and anti-poverty. Is that

what the party opposite says it is opposed to? Frankly I am a little astounded.

I suspect the majority of the House supports the reorganization the government has begun. As we promised we have worked to reduce the size of cabinet, to streamline operations and to bring together like departments. We have had many debates in the House about a number of departments and the department of heritage is one which I support very strongly.

The proposed legislation combines sectors that share the following responsibilities: the promotion of Canadian identity, cultural development and heritage, and the maintenance of our national parks.

I want to describe in some detail the different sectors and how they relate to fostering Canadian values and Canadian identity. The sector of citizenship and Canadian identity promotes the use of official languages. I have heard much talk from members opposite about the evils of promoting official languages. They should stop and reflect upon what we have built in the country, how we have managed in very difficult times and with very extreme tensions by promoting understanding, acceptance, introduction and inclusion rather than rejection.

The federal government is the government of all Canadians. Therefore its policies must serve a diverse population of some 27 million people. Actually Statistics Canada says it will soon be 29 million.

The department believes that official bilingualism allows for services in the official language of the citizen's choice and reflects a simple commitment to understand and to be understood by the public in English or in French.

Lester B. Pearson put it very eloquently when he said:

In a diverse federal state such as Canada, it is important that all citizens should have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the national administration and to identify themselves with and feel at home in their own national capital.

In addition to official languages, the citizenship and Canadian identity sector is also responsible for the Multiculturalism Act. It is apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse population provides a unique resource base for the successful development and expansion of our economy.

This is something that multinationals have recognized. This is something that the business community in Canada has recognized. This is something that the Liberal government has recognized for several decades, and that is why we have built the multiculturalism process. It is passing strange to me that members opposite have not recognized this point.

A diverse society is one which ensures a continuous and dynamic interplay of better ideas and experiences which are essential for a growing, competitive, global economy. By working with various ethnocultural and mainstream organizations the Department of Canadian Heritage is effecting real change to make Canada a better place and the envy of every nation.

That is what we are. I really support and applaud the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism for the work she is doing as she goes across the country supporting and promoting diversity. In that diversity is our strength as a country.

Amateur sports and related events like the Canadian games also fall under this department. These events are an important part of how the department fosters a positive Canadian identity and pursues the values of excellence that Canadians hold true. The sector of cultural development is also an essential, integral part of the department. This sector develops policies and programs to promote artistic expression and the preservation of Canada's heritage.

The economic impact of the arts community on the Canadian economy cannot be understated. In 1992 the cultural sector accounted for 3.7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $22 billion. In addition the sector employed almost 500,000 people, a relatively large bang for the buck.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of Canada's cultural sector. That is why under the auspices of the Department of Canadian Heritage it rigorously promotes the interest of Canada's cultural community on the international scene.

Finally I would like to refer to the integral part the parks sector fills in the Department of Canadian Heritage. This sector fulfils national and international responsibilities in mandated areas of heritage recognition and conservation. Our rich natural and historic heritage incudes 36 national parks, 750 historic sites, 9 historic canals and 4 marine areas located throughout Canada. They include some of the gems of the world's heritage. Parks Canada commemorates, protects and presents these national treasures. Parks Canada ensures public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage while at the same time ensures long term, ecological and commemorative integrity.

In short, what we are on about today is simply bringing together elements in government that speak to every person in the country and to the world about what we are as Canadians. We should all celebrate and enjoy the fruits of the work of the department. It is at the foundation of what makes us the best country in the world.

[Infrastructure, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and the minister responsible for the national infrastructure program.

We have heard many members opposite suggest that the national infrastructure program is simply filling potholes in the nation's highways.

As this is Technology in Government Week, I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us what the infrastructure program is doing to build the electronic highway for the next century.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I am not arguing with you. If the members opposite wish to contribute to this debate and want to save the people of Canada money then let us have a debate on getting people back to work, let us have a debate on getting this economy going, let us have a debate on getting people trained. I do not hear a single idea coming forth. I have never heard the words research and development', I have never heard the wordinvestment' come from that side of the House.

Let us have a debate about it. Let us get people back to work. Let us get people off UI. Let us get people into high quality, high paying jobs. Then we will see a difference.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me give the member two. Let me refer him to this bill, this bill which he throws away and says is nothing. This bill is a major modernization and improvement of services that will produce reductions in the cost of administering programs. That is a fact-this bill.

You want to make savings in UI, you want to-

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am slightly bemused because I did exactly that. I heard the Speaker has a written speech that he uses asking for specific information from members, because he asked the identical question of the member from my party who spoke last time.

I gave him a specific example. I can give him a number of specific examples. I would refer him first to the budget document from last February in which the Minister of Finance detailed specific reductions in the Human Resources Development portfolio. I can refer him to many speeches and statements by the Minister of Human Resources Development talking about a restructuring of the $38 billion social service envelope. I can refer him to the framework document that the Minister of Finance brought down earlier this week.

These are grand discussions, these are huge programs that affect millions and millions of Canadians and I find it very difficult to understand how any member could stand up and wipe out the benefits for millions and millions of people without any thought and discussion.

What we are proposing to do and what we are doing is taking a very difficult debate to the people of this country and asking them to participate in an exercise that is going to be painful for all of us. We are not deciding that in this Chamber based on a few throwaway comments from a few members.

I really find this debate right now very difficult when a member stands up and so quickly and so easily asks to deprive seniors of their pensions, or to deprive UI recipients of their benefits. I find this intolerable.

I would like to see from that party some specific suggestions that take into account the nature of this country. You cannot do what this member just suggested with UI without bankrupting some of the provinces. He should stop and think a bit before he starts carrying that debate forward to the public.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to direct the member's attention to a particular area. We all like to stand up and talk about the grand ideas that will transform programs and save billions of dollars, however impractical, inefficient or incredible those ideas might be. What I am trying to talk about in this bill is something that my mother used to say to me and I suspect other mothers said to their children: "If you look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves".

This is not about a massive restructuring of government programs. This is about, in many little steps, doing the work of government better, more efficiently, faster, giving better service and at the same time, saving money. There are all sorts. Computer programmers have come to government for the last 20 years and said: "If the government will just build this system, we will be able to deliver better service and save money". Unfortunately that has not always proved to be the case.

However, we have learned over time the techniques necessary to do exactly that. If we look at what has happened in the private sector: we have seen massive changes in management; a flattening of management hierarchies; more direct delivery at the service level and the use of expert systems.

Each one of the programs I mentioned here keeps a file on people with information on their names, addresses, postal codes, all of that identifying information. Why do we need to have four or five such databases? Why not one? Think about that between departments.

Canada Post was mentioned. Canada Post is building or is near finishing a database that has the name and address of every single Canadian in it. Why do we need to replicate that? Why can we not take advantage through proper information sharing of that information to save us money. Will this produce $5 billion savings? No, I do not think so. Will this flatten out the need for new resources, provide better service and save money along the way? Yes, it will.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the House for his intervention. It sets a model for the House that perhaps we should all think a bit about.

Despite the debate that has taken place over this last while in the House what this bill purports to do is simply bring the administration of the programs administered by the Department of Human Resources Development into the 20th century. It is simply an attempt to modernize the way we deliver services to people, to use the advantages which computers and information technology offer to us to allow us to better identify what services we are providing to whom, to ensure that we do not provide services to people who do not have entitlements to that service, to make it easy to access information quickly and to make the overall operations of government more efficient and more effective.

The fact is that this has been a movement that has been taking place in the private sector throughout this last decade. The fact is many governments at all levels are moving in this direction and it is about time the federal government caught up.

I commend the Minister of Human Resources Development for being able, given all the things he is having to deal with, to move forward with such an important initiative at this time.

I want to talk a bit about one aspect of it and to preface that I want to remind members of a couple of things. People historically are nervous about change. It was not that long ago when telephone answering machines were introduced and people used to complain all the time if they got a machine, they do not want their phone answered by the machine, they do not want to have to talk to a machine. Today when you phone somebody, if they do not have a machine you are annoyed because you cannot leave a message.

It was not that long ago we were concerned about electronic banking machines. People do not want to deal with a machine, they want to deal with a real person. I would ask most members of the House to reflect on where they do their banking. I bet the majority of them use their cards, go into the teller 24 hours a day, 7 days a week because it is much more efficient, much more effective and much better service.

That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about using those technologies to bring better, faster, more effective service to people.

Because of these concerns about technology there has always been a fear about if information is given to the government, how will the government utilize that information. There have been, and necessarily, strong prohibitions against the transfer of information among government departments.

Between that time, when we first began to introduce these programs and now, the House has enacted privacy legislation. It has enacted all sorts of protections and our use of technology has become much more efficient so that we know how to provide secure access. If a bank can provide secure access to my money 24 hours, seven days a week and prevent somebody else from getting at it then the government can provide secure access to confidential information that it holds in its records.

The bill identifies certain kinds of information that will be shared between legitimate users of the information within government to provide more efficient, more effective and faster service to citizens. When we talk about one-stop shopping, when we talk about service to citizens, this is what we are talking about.

I would like to concentrate on those provisions aimed at improving information sharing between government departments. The protection given to the information which old age security pensioners, unemployment insurance claimants, Canada pension plan recipients and children's special allowance beneficiaries must provide has always been high. The reasons for this are clear.

The Department of Human Resources Development is required to collect personal information in order to determine if an individual is eligible for a benefit and in what amount. Should clients feel uncertain about the confidentiality of this information, they might be reluctant to provide such information. In such a case the department would find it almost impossible to administer these programs.

Nevertheless there are situations in which the strict protection afforded this information actually prevents the government from giving its clients the best service possible. In some cases it sets up artificial barriers which hamper the service or action which the client is requesting. In other cases it prevents the government from making use of technology which could save the taxpayers of Canada money and avoid stressful overpayments for beneficiaries.

There was a member opposite talking about what specific savings would arise. This program will produce savings to government in the delivery of government services.

I am sure that all members have had to respond to many constituent queries concerning program and benefit information, changes or the resolution of difficulties. In such situations it is often unclear exactly what sort of information can be shared. When this involves OAS, CPP, UI or CSA benefits, MPs and their staff must contact the Department of Human Resources Development to request information about their constituent's particular case.

Some would argue that a constituent request for a member of Parliament to intervene on his or her behalf constitutes permission or authorization for the department to share information with that MP about the individual. However, it is not clear in law under which circumstances information can be released to MPs.

Public servants must therefore weigh off the requirement to protect client information against the need to provide proper service. One of the amendments in the bill would eliminate any uncertainty with respect to CPP, OAS and CSA legislation and so permit public servants to provide client information to members and their staffs acting on behalf of clients.

Another amendment would help departments provide better service to common clients. Because of the age group of their clients, the Departments of Human Resource Development and Veteran Affairs have many clients in common. Furthermore, if the circumstances under which a veteran qualifies for certain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the amount of benefits depends in part on what benefits he or she receives from the old age security and the Canada pension plan.

To determine benefit eligibility, the Department of Veterans Affairs requires information on that person's entitlement to OAS and CPP benefits.

While the OAS act currently allows the department to share some types of information, the CPP legislation does not. This has resulted in substantial overpayments to some veterans who have reported incorrect benefit amounts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many of these overpayments are difficult or even impossible to collect because of the hardship this would cause low income veterans.

The amendment in the bill pertaining to the Old Age Security Act would allow the Department of Human Resources Development to provide information to veterans affairs on common clients for the purposes of administering all acts pertaining to veterans. The amendment to the CPP would allow information sharing with veterans affairs for the first time and on the same basis as OAS.

The effect of these amendments would be to minimize overpayments to clients, eliminate the distress caused to veterans in overpayment situations and bring consistency and comprehensiveness to the OAS and CPP provisions.

Another amendment would enable the Department of Human Resources Development to give better service to disabled Canadians trying to re-enter the workforce.

Under current provisions of the Canada pension plan, disabled contributors who are unable to work may qualify for a CPP disability pension. The CPP administration is currently evaluating a project which offers rehabilitation to those disability pension recipients most likely to benefit from it.

These services would be provided by private rehabilitation specialists. However, in order for these professionals to evaluate the situation of disabled persons and the services he or she might require to get back into the workforce, they need access to client information. Current Canada pension plan legislation prevents the Department of Human Resources Development from providing this information directly to such professionals.

One of the amendments in the bill would enable the CPP administration to provide this information directly, thus reducing the present annoyance of the department having to give the information to the client who in turn has to pass it on to the rehabilitation specialist.

Two other amendments would allow certain information to be released under specific circumstances to enable the Government of Canada to proceed with two important initiatives. In one initiative the Correctional Service Canada is embarking on a program to charge federal inmates a portion of their income as room and board.

One amendment in the bill would allow information on CPP and OAS benefits paid to inmates to be transmitted to Corrections Canada for inclusion with other income information for assessing the room and board to be charged.

Another amendment would allow disclosure to the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General for Canada and the commissioner for the RCMP of OAS, CPP and UI client information in order to assist activities undertaken in Canada to investigate, prosecute and extradite persons suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Finally, another amendment would enable the provision of client information to Canada Post via computer tapes or other electronic means to print benefit award and denial letters. Should Canada Post be contracted to undertake this activity, strict conditions would be placed on the types and circumstances of this sharing.

Canada Post would be subject to government contractual agreements. Canada Post would continue to be obliged to protect the confidentiality of the mail and to abide by the provisions of the Privacy Act. It is important to emphasize that sharing information in these circumstances in no way lessens the protection given to confidential client information.

Those authorized to have access to this type of information would be bound by the legislation and any person releasing information illegally would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In conclusion, the amendments will be of great benefit both to Canadians and the federal government departments serving them. They will provide better service levels for Canadians and eliminate unnecessary work and red tape in dealing with government departments. They will eliminate much hardship for clients by reducing the incidence of incorrect payments.

As well, they will provide savings to the Government of Canada and in some cases result in additional revenues. Finally, they will permit the federal government to further the goal of justice in Canada.

For all of these reasons, I feel the House should support the bill and get on with its passage as quickly as possible.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

At least we wear one.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition of Ayub Hamid, Kalid Igbal, Golam Kibra and 236 others who are calling upon the Government of Canada to take the lead and use its influence in the UN to take any and all actions required to restore the territorial integrity of Bosnia.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

I thank the member for Lévis for the question. We serve together on the human resources committee and I have found his interventions to be always thoughtful.

It is a difficult problem. The member puts his finger exactly on the problem that has confronted students up to this point. We say it is a loan but there is an element of grant here because we pay the interest on those loans for the three, four, five years, up until the time that people begin repayment, and then we pay a subsidy up to a certain amount.

At the same time we know that if we allow people to successfully complete their education, the economy is still performing relatively well for people at that end of the scale. The question is that until this bill we have not allowed them any options, any opportunities to repay. If they get stuck, if they cannot find a job, we have not provided for them or given ourselves the opportunity to provide any way in which they can repay their loan. This bill begins to speak to that. It begins to offer some opportunities, whether it becomes income contingent repayment or some form of community service as an alternative to work.

We know that if you graduate university right now, job creation for university students, depending on the region of the country, is somewhere between 11 and 17 per cent. That is pretty healthy. It provides a lot of options, a lot of opportunities for work, a lot of options for people to access employment and repay these loans.

The bigger question is, are we allowing people to have an adequate educational experience or are we just simply putting them into a no-win situation in which they perform poorly because they have to work so hard to get by day to day that they are less competitive in the marketplace when they get out?