Andy Scott

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

Yesterday's budget reflected the very serious fiscal situation we face as a government and as a nation. It is important in coming to terms with our deficit that we also continue to build the framework for future economic growth.

With that in mind, could the secretary of state advise the House how the budget affects science and technology funding and its future?

[Employment, February 24th, 1995]

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

A year ago the minister launched, together with the provinces, a series of strategic initiatives across Canada to test innovative ways of helping Canadians get back to work.

Given the tight fiscal environment, governments and Canadians generally will be turning more often to creative solutions and wanting to make sure that these solutions are working.

Could the minister report today on the impact of these initiatives on job creation in Canada.

[Dr. George Stanley, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as a New Brunswicker, I am pleased to pay tribute today to Dr. George Stanley.

Dr. Stanley is a former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick and a key player in designing the Canadian flag.

During Dr. Stanley's tenure as dean of arts at Canada's Royal Military College in Kingston, he drew a design of a maple leaf placed on a red and white background. This design Dr. Stanley modelled after the college's own flag.

On February 15, 1965, the maple leaf was raised over Parliament Hill. To quote Dr. Stanley:

A flag is more than a means of identification. It is the embodiment of what a country stands for: It is the symbol of the ethos or spirit of a people, its aspirations, its will to live and its determination to play its role in history.

How true are those words, Mr. Speaker. I add that our flag is also the symbol of unity, one that speaks for all the citizens of Canada.

[Literacy, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support the MCL's National Family Literacy Conference and welcome participants to Ottawa.

Given my own work promoting literacy in my riding through the community academic services program, I recognize the importance of reaching out to those who are unable to enjoy the printed media.

Children in non-reading families are more likely than other children to be non-readers as adults. Unless this cycle is broken it can continue for generations.

Schools alone cannot be responsible for establishing citizens as full and comprehensive language users. Literacy development demands participation from the family and the community if citizens are to be strong, effective communicators.

In family literacy programs like those championed by the National Family Literacy Conference, parents and other adult family members learn the importance of reading and writing.

I applaud efforts to meet the literacy needs of parents and their children and I pledge my continued support in eradicating illiteracy in our communities.

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleagues have eloquently shared with members of the House many of the details of the amendments contained in Bill C-54 and many other items as well. However because some hon. members may portray these amendments as detrimental to old age security and the Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance beneficiaries, I am pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight.

These amendments arise out of a genuine desire to improve the service which the Department of Human Resources Development provides its many and varied clients. At the same time these amendments enable the Government of Canada to pursue other important goals while respecting the rights of its clients and those of the taxpayers of Canada.

One of the amendments contained in Bill C-54 would reduce the period that old age security benefits can be paid retroactively from five years to one.

Some will suggest that the government is robbing pensioners of their pensions. Really what older Canadian, in fact what not

so old Canadian has not heard of the old age security pension. It is probably one of the best known of all government programs.

Everyone knows that we have to be age 65 to get the pension. One of the reasons it is so widely known is that it opens doors to other entitlements. If you receive the old age security pension and have a low income you can qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. If your spouse is between 60 and 65 he or she can qualify for the spouse's allowance.

As well once a person receives the OAS pension they receive an OAS identification card. Many seniors use that as proof they have reached the so-called golden age and are entitled to discounts and special rates that businesses, transportation providers and others offer to senior citizens. Let us not forget the benefits that many provincial and territorial governments provide to low income recipients of the old age security pension.

On the other side however some individuals aware of the five year retroactivity period may in fact decide to delay application for their OAS. Their profit so to speak may be eligibility or increased benefits for other provincial or federal benefits because they are not receiving the OAS.

Further, higher income individuals may look at the five year retroactivity period as a means to defer taxes with the so-called clawback of the OAS.

Given then that the old age security pension is so widely known, is one year not a reasonable period during which to expect that a senior citizen can make application for benefits or have a family member or friend do it on his or her behalf? Indeed data from the Department of Human Resources Development show that the vast majority of pensioners apply not just on time but well in advance of their 65th birthday.

Providing a one year retroactivity period is not only reasonable, it is consistent with the retroactivity periods of other related programs. Even within the OAS legislation guaranteed income supplements and spouse's allowance payments can be paid retroactively for only one year.

As well Canada pension plan benefits which many OAS pensioners receive may also be paid retroactively for just one year. Indeed the two different retroactivity periods have been a source of confusion for CPP and OAS clients and have been very difficult to explain.

Furthermore the amendment would also include a special provision for those individuals who fail to apply because of incapacity which could occur because of serious illness. For these people the bill would allow unlimited retroactivity back to the point that the incapacity began.

This approach to retroactivity for OAS benefits is fair and reasonable and I am sure hon. members will see it as such. To relieve any concerns hon. members may have about this change, there will be a grace period until April 1995. This will enable anyone over the age of 65 who may not have applied for their OAS pension up to now and who could qualify for more than 12 months of retroactive payments to apply under the current rules. This approach is fair, reasonable and I am sure hon. members will see it as such.

I would like to turn to another provision which could cause concern to those not properly informed. This is the amendment to the Old Age Security Act which would remove the existing timeframe restrictions for the recovery of overpaid moneys to OAS, GIS and spouse's allowance clients.

The current legislation allows overpayment benefits to be recovered only if they are discovered and recovery is started in a very short time after the overpayment is made. The provision does not apply in cases of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.

However those situations aside, the restrictions of the existing provisions mean that each year millions of dollars in overpayments must be written off even where the pensioner could easily afford to repay the overpaid amount. It is important to mention that the act already has provisions allowing overpayments to be forgiven if the recovery would cause hardship, the amount is small, or there is no reasonable hope of repayment.

Another proposed provision in this bill would also allow overpayments to be forgiven if they occurred as a result of an error on the part of the OAS administration. The policy for recovery of overpayments also allows for the negotiation of a schedule of repayments to ensure that no hardship would occur to the pensioner.

I should also add that another amendment in the bill would allow Revenue Canada information to be used to verify GIS and spouse's allowance income statements at an earlier stage in the annual process for applying for income supplements. This has been the main source of GIS and SPA overpayments.

The taxpayers of Canada expect us to spend their tax dollars wisely, but Canadians are also compassionate. This amendment would be fair to the taxpayers of Canada while at the same time treating pensioners who have been overpaid fairly and compassionately.

The Department of Human Resources Development is required to collect very personal information from its clients in order to determine if they are eligible for benefits. The responsibility for safeguarding this information has never been taken lightly. Indeed, keeping such information privileged has been so important to the department that many of its legislative provisions have been even more stringent than the Privacy Act.

These tight restrictions on the use of CPP, OAS and UI client information, while guaranteeing Canadians privacy, have prevented justice from being done in one very important situation. I am speaking about investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The existing provisions of the OAS and CPP legislation allow confidential client information to be released only after a criminal charge has been laid. With respect to UI that legislation prohibits the release of some kinds of client information while in other instances the legislation is vague about such release.

Often the identity of the individuals who have been identified as suspected war criminals cannot be confirmed. This has meant that the RCMP has not been able to conclusively establish the existence and location in Canada of many of the individuals in question and therefore cannot lay charges.

The amendments contained in this bill would allow OAS, CPP and UI data to be used by specific and very restricted individuals within the RCMP for the investigation, prosecution and extradition activities undertaken in Canada in relation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. This information would be used in Canada only. In no instance would confidential client information be made available to foreign governments or agencies and in no instance would the RCMP have access to client information for other than this purpose.

The last thing the government wants to do is erode individuals' rights to privacy, but this right has been used as a cover by those wanting to evade prosecution for unspeakable crimes. The Government of Canada and indeed Canadians no longer want our right to privacy to be used as a shield by those who do not want to be held accountable for crimes they committed against humanity. This amendment would help ensure that it is not.

Finally, there is one more amendment that I want to clarify for hon. members. This is an amendment to the Old Age Security Act and Canada pension plan that is consequential to an amendment being proposed by the Solicitor General. This would allow the Department of Human Resources Development to provide information on the OAS and CPP benefits being paid to pensioners who are incarcerated in federal penal institutions. The intention is that these individuals would be charged room and board based on their income. This information would allow the Solicitor General to receive accurate information from the Department of Human Resources Development on the amount of these moneys so that a fair charge could be made.

Is it right that prisoners receive free room and board at the same time that they may be accumulating income from federal benefits that may also be paid from the public purse? I do not think so and neither do Canadians. Pensioners who are not criminals have to pay for their own accommodation and other needs. It is only fair and indeed responsible that those of penal institutions do the same, especially when they are receiving federal benefits at the same time.

In conclusion, I hope these explanations have helped to clarify the rationale for a few of the amendments contained in Bill C-54 and I give hon. members the information they need to be able to explain them to their constituents. It is my distinct honour to support this bill.

[National Dental Hygiene Week, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of members of the House and all Canadians that October 16-23 is National Dental Hygiene Week. The purpose of this campaign is to remind Canadians that oral health is important. By improving our oral health we can improve our overall health.

This year's campaign focuses on teens and addresses issues such as smokeless tobacco, gum disease and general mouth care. Natural teeth are meant to last a lifetime and good home dental care can help teens and other Canadians reach this goal.

Dental hygienists are staging mall displays, visiting schools and community centres and working with local media to increase knowledge of oral health. Fact sheets focusing on teen oral health issues are also available.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association is to be congratulated for mounting a promotion which also highlights the role of dental hygienists in helping Canadians to achieve good oral health.

I am sure all members of the House congratulate the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and wish it much success in this very important campaign.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in my 30 seconds I would say that I also feel sympathy for my colleague. Never having sat in opposition I sympathize with the nature of this place being somewhat adversarial. It is very difficult for members on the other side to see the benefits of some of the things that are proposed. So perhaps we share a sympathy toward each other.

As to the fact that my colleague claims his party has told us about its deficit reduction plans, our plan is to reduce the deficit by the end of the third year to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the questions. It allows me the opportunity to speak specifically to the rather targeted nature of the changes. A large part of the reason we are engaged in this discussion has to do with the fact that the Minister of Human Resources Development has invited Canadians to help priorize what is important to social policy spending.

I would say the member has hit the nail on the head. We have to make sure there are sufficient opportunities for those people who are not able to be employed. At the same time, we have to make sure there are opportunities for people, regardless of disability, who would like to work and very often can work, but are constrained by a system that requires them to define themselves as being unemployable to get benefits.

It is deplorable that people who otherwise would love to be working-in many cases that is the case in that particular community-are restricted by virtue of the programs they are participating in. I welcome the opportunity to point that out.

Regarding the rather philosophical nature of my discourse I can only say I really believe that is the tone we should bring to this debate as we launch it, because we want to involve Canadians. The first place to start is the values around which this review should take place.

Clearly my background as a proud member of the party that I support leans me toward supporting the kinds of programs that would offer opportunity to the people the member mentions. As we engage the nation in this debate we are all obliged to set out the parameters and bring a philosophical framework to the discussion.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak in support of the minister's discussion paper on improving social security in Canada.

I suspect that few in this room or in the entire country for that matter would dispute Canada's affluence and ability to sustain a generous or even enviable social safety net. In fact, how many countries can we identify that would love to be having this debate right now. Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, Cuba, most recently India, to name the more obvious, but also European countries. Even the Americas would love to be engaged in a debate about how to improve what is arguably one of the best social safety nets in the world. I would say we are rather lucky. We are a wealthy nation and we must remind ourselves of that as we engage in this discussion.

I would like to point out that many people have stated a need for reform of our social safety programs. Most Canadians agree that change is imperative. The basis of this need for change comes from two sides. One, we must cut because of the debt and the deficit situation. Others argue that our social programs were born of a different time and place, a different era, and that they are now simply out of date and need modernizing and restructuring to better reflect the current needs of our citizens.

It is this second position with which I agree. Our programs have become dated and there is an absolute need to restructure whatever assistance the government can provide to better reflect the contemporary needs of Canadians. I do not deny that financing our ideological generosity over the long term means attending to our deficit, but we do not have to compromise our ideology or our generosity, or force the burden of prudence on to the backs of those in need.

New directions are necessary. Some will cost money but savings can be realized by improving inefficiencies within the system. We can improve the way we deliver assistance and reduce the amount of overlap and duplication. We can achieve savings by devolving some responsibilities to the provinces. We do not want to cut simply for the sake of cutting. I believe the government has the plan to bring about our badly needed social policy reform.

Foremost, we recognize and fully embrace the need for open and informed consultation with all Canadians. We must if we are to be the architects of a safety net for generations to come, exercise the greatest prudence, and the greatest patience in engaging Canadians in this historic debate. It has to be a system made by Canadians if it is meant to serve Canadians.

I want to commend the Minister of Human Resources Development for his strong personal commitment to a thorough, comprehensive and meaningful consultation on this issue. His commitment is one I urge all members to rely on, to appreciate the need to seek out the views of every constituent in every riding of the country, to want really to know what it is our constituents want.

It has been suggested that the Reform proposals represent firm decisions and that we as members on this side are involved in selling a plan. As you can tell from my comments, it is not my intention nor is it the intention of the government. Rather, my effort today is designed to sell a process, a need to involve Canadians in this important debate.

There are certainly elements of the discussion paper that excite me, particularly those involving helping children and its general direction to more active social programming I wholeheartedly support.

Specifically as a New Brunswicker I can attest to the fact that we have been engaged in a similar debate at the provincial level. Such discussion and debate has resulted in a conception of some forward-looking social programs in our province such as the community academic services program, a literacy training program, and job corps to name just two.

It is the vision behind these creative partner-based programs at the local level that underpins the federal government's renewal initiative. The benchmark for our success is not how much money the government can save, rather it is whether such programs are beneficial and effective in the lives they are intended to improve. That is the objective that must be brought to the government's desire to reform the social safety net. It must be the guiding principle for decisions taken and it should be the framework adopted by all members of the House when they seek input from the constituents in their respective ridings.

I personally learned a great deal from the forum on social policy held in my riding in April. I know that my constituents are encouraged by the fact that they have been asked to help in the minister's reform proposals. My constituents recognize what a proposal means. It is something offered, something suggested, and they know their opinions will be welcomed and valued in helping transform a proposal into reality.

We in Fredericton-York-Sunbury are ready for October 30 when we reconvene to discuss this important reform again. We are anxious to offer whatever assistance we can to the minister because we, too, want a safety net designed to suit our needs both now and in the future.

We must listen to Canadians. The magnitude of this debate is such that its success will depend on achieving some kind of national consensus. In order to achieve that consensus we must assure ourselves and all Canadians that apart from our new social program regime, every effort is made to attend all possible opportunities on the revenue side and elsewhere on the expenditure side.

We must be as creative and fair as we possibly can in addressing our fiscal situation or we will not be able to count on the support of those who need to know the system is fair. We must remind ourselves that our social programs have and continue to be designed with a purpose; to mitigate against poverty, inequity, regional disparity and uneven opportunity.

The reality now is that the fault lies with the system, an outdated system on which far too many with tremendous capabilities have to depend. Our labour market needs these people but we have to find better ways to marry the employment needs of Canadians with the employment needs of Canada.

We are entering a more enlightened era of governing and of offering aid to citizens who need assistance. We have progressed through earlier notions of simple charity and through the 1960s notion of entitlement.

I am pleased that in this reform we are moving further along that continuum. We now recognize the differences between those with and those without, the haves and the have nots, the empowered and the enfranchised and those unempowered and disenfranchised. These differences are far greater than merely money and material assets.

These differences are far more fundamental; differences in skills, confidence, access to opportunity be it financial, academic or professional. These are the factors and the measures against which we must judge the integrity, suitability, sustainability and success of our social programs.

These are the dimensions needed to reflect an enlightened, holistic, modern approach to people, their needs, their goals and their personal desires. I want to emphasize that the cornerstone of this exercise is to recognize the importance of giving people control over their own lives, to let individuals themselves be the decision makers and architects of their own destiny.

Our paternalistic system of defining and administering to the needs of people is approaching an end. I cannot overstate, as we engage in this transition, our need to provide short term support during the progression from unemployment to employment.

As a New Brunswicker I am proud of the fact that we are moving in the direction of greater independence. Just as we need to be able to rely on the support of the federal government to help us through this transition, so too do citizens struggling to improve their own lot in life.

Practically, I would propose special consideration must be given to the unique seasonal nature of the Atlantic Canada workforce. I wholeheartedly support the need to offer training, counselling and choices to those historically dependent on federal programs such as unemployment insurance.

I would also maintain the need for continued income support where present circumstances simply do not allow for many seasonal workers to enjoy a sufficient annual income. We must seize the opportunity to make the entire social system more client based, more efficient, less bogged down, less heavily weighted with administrative infrastructure.

I conclude by appealing to all Canadians to participate in this review regardless of their personal predisposition or politics. Even past positions should not get in the way of helping the government do what is right by Canadians. Lives are at stake, many people are depending on us. We cannot allow the impact of the exercise to be dismissed.

I believe that the solutions to the challenges before us lie in the hearts and minds of compassionate, caring, committed Canadians. Change is necessary. Resources are scarce. We must collectively, hopefully collegially, create a new system that captures the generosity and compassion of Canadians that have served us so long and so well.

[Universal Children's Day, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada and countries around the world celebrate Universal Children's Day, a day designated by the UN to recognize the rights of children everywhere.

I pay tribute to Canada's children and highlight the many Third World children in need of assistance. I particularly point to PLAN International Canada, formerly Foster Parents Plan, a group dedicated to lifting children from poverty around the world.

To commemorate Universal Children's Day, PLAN today unveils an African children's toy exhibit at the Ontario Science Centre. These toys, made from recycled material by African children, demonstrate the challenges they face and the ingenuity they possess.

On behalf of the chair of PLAN's board of directors, a constituent of mine, I congratulate the some 611 foster parents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury for helping better the lives of roughly 677 children. There is no better time than today to encourage our constituents to support children everywhere.