Roger Gallaway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Remembrance Day Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251 has in this House a history which today I would suggest we have a chance to rewrite, not in the sense of being revisionist historians but rewrite perhaps out of a sense of duty.

On May 20 of last year this bill died in this Chamber-it was known as C-289 at that time-because of many factors, the principal of which was somewhat of a disagreement among and between parties and interest groups. That is, I would suggest, tragic because an act of remembrance is not a political or partisan fact.

We have seen in this same House in the past several months debates concerning the role of Canada in its military and peacekeeping. Although we as a country are not necessarily one of the major military leaders globally, we have garnered much respect internationally because of the extreme competence of our personnel and their effectiveness on these missions.

I really should ask the question: Why have we for many years been sending soldiers and our armed forces everywhere in the world? I think the response is quite simple. It is simply because in this country there is a belief that we Canadians should try to look for and from time to time make peace.

I believe that Canadians share a common set of beliefs, attitudes and values and that one of these elementary or core principles is our role as makers of peace on this globe. Surely I do not need to tell those present in this place of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in this century.

These were lives that were freely given because we as a country believed that it was a basic value shared in this country and the importance of our place in the world order. Of course, those who contributed the most are not here to ask us as a national collective to remember them.

Next year, 1995, will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and one would expect and undoubtedly there will be many national and international ceremonies to mark the end of the war. One obvious conclusion to be seen at these ceremonies is the fragility, the aging process, of those who were directly involved.

Wars or armed conflicts always operate on two distinct levels. On an individual basis it has a profound effect on those who

were directly involved. Today the veterans of World War II in this country are on average in their seventies and are declining rapidly in number. That unfortunately is a simple fact of life.

There is a second level to this. Wars have affected and moulded national identities and impressed, which is surely the case in this country, and reinforced the attitudes and values in our dealings with other sovereign states.

In Canada there is no doubt a realization that we as a country became an international entity and acquired a national conscience and identity because of our role in the major conflicts in the first half of this century; conflicts in which, unfortunately, the youth of this country fueled our endeavours. Today we do virtually nothing as a country or on a national basis to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made.

I know that this bill has reached the point of national consensus from a provincial perspective. There are a number of individuals in this country who are vitally interested in this bill.

One principal proponents of this bill is a lady by the name of Mrs. Wilma McNeil, to whom I spoke this afternoon. She has written to all ten premiers. The responses have been unanimous in support.

It is interesting to note and to put on the record here today that at least one premier in this country believed and put it in writing to her that he thought it was some sort of a holiday already. He did not realize the lack of the role of the federal government in this day.

Mrs. McNeil has also waged an information war to advise veterans organizations in this country about this bill. These groups, the core of which represent those who survived the war, have unanimously endorsed this bill.

Finally, I am speaking here today in support of this because I think it is an opportunity for the government and for members of Parliament to recognize the importance of this, not only on an individual basis because that will fade with time, but we as a national collective, as a country, recognize that this represents a day which has great importance to the national attitude and belief and, most important, the national values of this country.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness it is difficult to answer a question raised in an earlier speech with respect to a speech made by the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps the member ought more properly to have addressed the question to her.

As I understand the concerns raised by the hon. member, I have been advised by the parliamentary secretary that the figure of $7.3 million will come through streamlining administrative procedures within the department.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I speak to the House today as one who supports Bill C-53.

Today I would like to speak in a comparative fashion concerning the comments made by the hon. member for Kootenay East before the House broke for the recess. At that time he proposed that national parks be removed from the Department of Canadian Heritage and put into the Department of the Environment. In reviewing his comments I fail to understand the rationale.

He stated that he has, in a very anecdotal way, some experience with national parks, as his riding contains three of them. In his specific examples of concerns he spoke only to one environmental situation, namely the difficulties of maintaining naturally evolving forests. The remaining issues he mentioned dealt with maintenance of highways, user fees, enterprise units, hiring practices and office locations. I would suggest that these are administrative as opposed to environmental issues.

Nevertheless there are undeniably important links to be maintained with Environment Canada in the science and research sectors as they relate to national heritage exemplified in the national parks system. This is being accomplished now through a memorandum of understanding between the two departments. Specific areas of interest include membership on the science committee on participation, the biodiversity strategy and the protected areas strategy, all of which are multilateral initiatives involving a wide range of government departments.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is both the client department of Environment Canada and a leader on specific issues such as the protected areas strategy in the same way that other departments such as fisheries and oceans are both clients and leaders on specific environmental issues. This sharing of responsibilities among departments not only focuses the right kinds of expertise on the right issues, but in the case of Canadian heritage adds an extra supporting voice at the cabinet table for dealing with them.

Parks Canada is an organization that comprises responsibilities for both the natural and the cultural heritage of our country and has done so under many different names and departments since 1919. It has, quite simply, a natural and a cultural component that are not mutually exclusive.

Nationally and internationally, efforts are being made to recognize that history, culture and nature are interdependent. This is largely reflected in the UNESCO Convention on the protection of natural heritage and world culture, which he represents as the minister responsible for Parks Canada.

As the new Department of Canadian Heritage includes the bulk of natural cultural programs over and above those within Parks Canada, there is a unification of that element of our national and international responsibilities.

Moreover the national parks and national historic sites are tangible symbols of the best of our Canadian identity. The Department of Canadian Heritage has national responsibilities, programs for the enhancement of Canadian identity that will build on this element as well.

An example of this kind of synergy that is developing throughout the new department of heritage is the heritage tourism initiative which we on this side of the House are supporting. Given the wide mandate the department now enjoys, there are tremendous opportunities to build an exciting, economically significant and, probably most important, a sustainable international program based on the cultural institutions and natural wonders of this country. To this end the government is also committed to the completion of the national parks system, the expansion of our national historic site themes, and the establishment of new national marine conservation areas.

I would point out that new guiding principles and policies for the range of activities undertaken by Parks Canada were completed under the umbrella of Canadian heritage. When these policies were tabled in the House last March it was to considerable acclaim for the many stakeholders involved in these aspects of national heritage. There was a clear demonstration that they had been involved in their development.

With regard to the specific concerns raised by the member for Kootenay East I would note that it does appear strange that the Department of Canadian Heritage is involved in the road maintenance business. However I do not comprehend how that

translates into an argument for returning the national parks to Environment Canada.

In any event there are roads, national transportation corridors, that pass through some parks. There is no question about that. As they are within park boundaries there is an obligation of the responsible department to ensure their suitability and safety. In some parks work is contracted out or performed under an agreement with the province.

The member will be interested to know that Parks Canada is reviewing all its road operations to ensure the most effective means of proper maintenance. That could well mean consolidation of operations in the four mountain parks.

I understand well the member's argument that highways are normally managed by provinces and should not be funded by Parks Canada. Accordingly the government will take the member's suggestion under advisement.

I found that the member's comment on road tolls for commercial through traffic in national parks to be somewhat confusing. There was no such road toll nor is one being contemplated.

On the question of the enterprise unit for the operation of hot pools I believe that this project is turning out to be successful and should be a good pilot for similar ventures. Staff will continue to be hired on merit and where appropriate, business opportunities that can be realized will be pursued. I welcome his support for a more businesslike approach to park operations as exemplified by the enterprise unit at the hot springs. The member will be pleased to know that this initiative is one of many that represent the future direction of management in our parks.

I trust that I have answered the member's concerns. I conclude by saying I am proud to support Bill C-53, which creates the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a number of petitions containing 8,500 signatures, primarily from the residents of my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, calling upon the government to

place a moratorium on any changes or cuts in VIA Rail service between the cities of Sarnia and Toronto.

[Neighbouring Rights, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since 1988 certain communications experts within what is now the Department of Canadian Heritage have talked about the concept of neighbouring rights. That is a form of copyright payment imposed on radio broadcasters to be paid to recording artists and producers.

Other experts admit that 68 per cent of blank cassettes sold are used for reproducing existing recordings which are legally sold in retail outlets. In this age of user pay let those who are bending existing copyright laws, that is the purchasers of blank cassettes, pay an artist's fee. Business, that is the big and small radio stations in this country, once again should not be required to pay. Without radio stations there is no recording industry or artist showplace. Without radio stations our sense of community surely diminishes.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a topic which is much less glamorous but is related to a question which I asked on June 20 of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The question concerned what action the government was taking to fight the increase in sea lamprey eel population in the Great Lakes.

I realize that this is not a topic which has a great appeal for someone who lives in a place like Airdlie, Alberta or Moncton, New Brunswick. At the same time I think it is important that all Canadians understand the importance of the Great Lakes and their ecosystems.

Every year some 75,000 Canadians have jobs and some $2 billion or more are generated simply as a result of the commercial and sports fishing industries which exist on the Great Lakes. Every year some 4 million sports people try their luck on the waters of this lake system.

It is also important that we remember the recent past when the sea lamprey first appeared in the lakes and flourished at a rate which threatened the very existence of all fishing in the Great Lakes.

The result of this predator, which came in from of the ocean when the seaway was opened, an eel which can live in fresh or salt water, was the absolute annihilation of commercial fisheries for a time in the 1950s.

In the 1950s governments did react. Governments used the best technology of the time to combat and limit the population of eels in the lakes so that the numbers of certain species did in fact come back to an acceptable level where an industry could exist.

As is often the case, there is a certain level of complacency which sets in at the government and at the naturalist level. It is a complacency from a governmental perspective in that dollars directed to controlling the sea lamprey remain flat and in some cases actually marginally decreased to the point that less was being done to control the populations of the sea lamprey.

At the same time due to joint Canadian-American efforts water quality in the Great Lakes started to improve. We are all aware of the efforts taken to improve water quality. This opened up new habitats for lamprey eels. The combined result of improved water quality and less money for control has resulted in a real resurgence in lamprey populations.

Naturalists have now confirmed that lamprey eels take more trout out of Lake Superior than do all the commercial sports fishermen on that body of water.

Finally it is essential that this threat be always considered in light of the 75,000 jobs and the $2 billion plus generated by the fishing industry on the lakes.

When I asked the question of the minister I was very pleased and surprised by his response that the government has acted to protect this industry and these jobs. The minister has recognized the seriousness of the problem and has moved to address it in a timely fashion.

The government has increased funding to the Great Lakes fishery commission by one-third. The fishery commission, as some may realize, is a joint Canadian-American agency which deals with ecological issues in the Great Lakes system. We must however realize that this problem emanates from feeder rivers on both sides of the border.

Canada has increased its contributions in a real and significant fashion. It is now necessary, indeed imperative, that pressure be brought to ensure that the American government will match the Canadian proportionate increase, failing which I would suggest that a multi-billion dollar industry and tens of thousands of jobs will continue to be threatened.

[Canadian National, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a belief that crown corporations, those corporate representatives of the Canadian public, acted in the interest of all Canadians. To the surprise of certain Canadian National employees in my riding, management has informed them that some 25 positions will be phased out and replaced by American workers at Flat Rock, Michigan near Detroit, which I still believe to be in the United States.

On behalf of those workers and indeed all CN employees I implore the board of directors and management to start working for the real shareholders of that company.

I believe all Canadians want trains inspected and repaired by Canadians. That is not an unreasonable request.

Canadian National employees expect a reasonable reversal of this mistaken decision of the management of our corporation, Canadian National.

[Great Lakes Sport Fishery, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The fishing industry on the Great Lakes is used by four million anglers, generates $2 billion to $4 billion annually and supports some 75,000 full time jobs.

Now there is evidence to suggest that the sea lamprey eel is making a strong comeback in the Great Lakes. What is being done by the government to address this problem before it gets totally out of hand?

[Blood Fractionation Plant, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a member from Ontario, I would like to express my support for the immediate construction of the blood fractionation plant. This is a vital initiative for the health and safety of Canadians.

The Department of Health established a blue ribbon panel composed of independent experts in this field to review the issue of blood fractionation. I welcome their report which concluded that blood fractionation should begin immediately in Canada. It was last fall that Halifax was chosen, after an extensive site selection process conducted by the Canadian Red Cross Society, as the best location in the country for this project.

This issue is far too important for petty regional politics. We need a fractionation plant and we need it now. This is not just good news for Nova Scotia, this is great news for all Canadians.