Jim Silye

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to state that as a rookie parliamentarian I am fast learning what those with experience do. They like to twist things. Whatever it is you say they like to twist and flip it, just as the member opposite did when he stood up and said that I think we should have a guaranteed annual income. I did not say that. What I said was that we could consider it. I said let us solve the big problem. We could consider it.

Also members opposite, especially the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance, said that in the social policy debate when the hon. member for Calgary North talked about what the federal government had to do to meet their deficit targets, the cuts it would have to make. The cuts this government has to make to meet its targets are not the $9 billion being talked about in the newspapers today. Over the next two and a half to three years it will be cuts of $15 billion that will have to be made. That is the point our member on the committee made at a press conference.

This government proceeds not only in Question Period but at any opportunity it gets to say that the Reform Party is recommending cuts of $15 billion in social programs. That is not true. The government itself is recommending cuts of about $9 billion in social programs. It is not saying it. Secret memos are circulating from minister to minister. It does not come clean with the general public. It likes to twist things.

Yesterday the member for Calgary West asked why go over a wide chasm in two leaps. The finance minister got up right away; why not do it in one, was the implication. That was my inference. What was the finance minister's inference? His is: "Let's twist it and use it against them. The public is gullible; the public will really listen to me. I have a good routine. I can really deliver this. Unlike the Reform Party, we would not do it in two steps". He missed the point, as they continually do. Similarly, the government whip has just missed the point on taxing and the point I made about the MP pension plans.

During my speech I may have said $7 to $1. If I said that it is inaccurate and I am wrong. That is not accurate so to that degree I will agree with it. The amount of money MPs put into the pension plan and the amount the government puts in on our behalf is not matching dollar for dollar. It is not matching two for one. It is not matching three for one.

There are two parts to it. There is a 4 per cent and a 7 per cent. The 7 per cent part, not the pension plan itself but the 7 per cent, the registered annual allowance or whatever it is, I do not even know the initials it is so complicated, the ratio of what the government puts in, what the taxpayers put in, versus what MPs put in is seven to one. If he cares to refute that then he can rise any time he wishes.

This is the kind of twisting government people do once they get power. I do not understand. In business I get nowhere by misrepresenting the facts. I get egg on my face and I get the door closed in my face the next time I come around. Perhaps that is why people in Canada always turf out a government: they find when members are over on this side they say one thing but when they are on the other side they do another.

This is one thing the Reform Party will not do. What we say here today on this side, what we put in our blue book and our policy book, and what we work hard to do to find out what constituents want and the voters want, we will do when we get over on that side. Mr. Speaker, I assure you we will be over on that side and we will do what we said we would do from this side.

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

I believe the finance minister should write a comic book. He likes to give answers quite often in a comedic fashion.

If he is going to tax RRSPs for all Canadians across this land, then he should also consider taxing those funds the government puts into MP pension plans, that portion which is a seven to one ratio that we put in as MPs. That government portion should be taxed in all the public service pension plans as well.

We like to pride ourselves as not only listening to people and looking at what the problems are, but coming up with solutions based on what causes the problem. What causes the problem in both OAS and in CPP is that there are insufficient funds to look after future generations. Why not consider combining OAS and the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, with the CPP into a single guaranteed annual income program for the elderly? It would be phased in gradually to preserve benefits for the current generation of pensioners. This would pay more to the poorer seniors and less to the wealthy seniors.

The principle and problem I am trying to resolve is the fact that what I pay into CPP today and what I have paid into it is less than what future generations are going to have to pay when they

have to pay for me. That is because it is only funded by current premiums. It is not set up on an actuarially sound basis. That is what we should be looking at to solve that problem.

Let us look at OAS. OAS is a universal pension scheme. It pays a pension to all but the wealthiest seniors with benefits up to $4,547 per person and is taxed back at 15 cents per dollar of income above $53,000. The annual cost is $14.4 billion.

There is also a guaranteed income supplement for those seniors who truly need it. This particular program has to be preserved. This program must continue. We must make cuts elsewhere in the budget so as not to affect the seniors guaranteed income supplement. It is imperative that the $4.3 billion subsidy in this area is protected and guaranteed. Those are the seniors who truly need it. Not only do they need their OAS but they need their GIS.

What we should do is perhaps combine OAS with the CPP, a solution to ensuring there is something left for those seniors who really need it and for those who need extra over and above their CPP there is a guaranteed annual income. Their income levels are topped up based on whatever level we define as the bare minimum required for food, shelter and clothing.

We should develop our social programs, design and target them to those people who truly need them. If the funding could come from the government to those people through the raising of funds directly for those people rather than through the various complex methods we are now using through the Income Tax Act it would be more clear and obvious and less costly administratively. It would also be more effective and efficient. More money would go into the hands and pockets of those people who truly need it.

Earlier today I debated under questions and comments with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. He stated that he was a Liberal and I agreed; I figure I have learned that much. He also said he felt there would be enough money in the Canada pension plan for him despite the fact that the contributions he is currently making do not allow for the unfunded liability. With that extra great incremental cost that will be there he still believes he does not have to worry.

I understand he is only 32 years old and he is not worried. I know 60 year olds who are five years away from collecting it who are worried. I know 63 year olds who are worried. I think the parliamentary secretary should be a little bit worried.

He also stated that as a Liberal he believes in the principle of universality. This was a great concept the Liberals subscribed to even back in 1968. I remember that when I was in university. Universality had a purpose then. Universality had a reason for the majority of Canadians to follow it. There was nothing wrong when the principle of universality was introduced at the time that it was. However this is 1994, not the 1960s. Although the principle of universality has a lot of merits and would be great if we could afford it, that is the point: we cannot afford it.

We must look at and develop programs that help the seniors and students. Once they are developed what we need to do is not adhere to a principle of universality but adhere to a principle of universal access for those people who need to tap into these great programs. These great programs the government spends hours, days, months and years developing should be available and accessible universally, and portable all across this land. That is the way to address our social programs.

As long as this government continues to believe in the principle of universality and thinks we can live the life of Riley at the expense of future generations, then it will never solve the problems that face this country. It will never really address them with an action plan. One or two years from now the government will be coming up with another book of another colour looking for further discussion and further consultation.

I also debated with the government whip on a TV program. He told me that this plan of the Minister of Human Resources Development would be one that would help solve the problems of our social programs. I told him on television-and he can look at the tape-that it would just be a discussion paper, that there was no action plan at all. He disagreed and I said I would eat my words. Well, I do not have to. Now we know.

Not even the government members know what the senior cabinet ministers are doing. They are just tinkering with the system. It is a complex system, but rather than addressing the big major problems, they are avoiding them.

In conclusion, I have a seventh point, if I could find it here. My fellow members are saying to end, to finish, but I still have a couple of minutes. Do I have anything left to say? If I had another 15 minutes I would repeat it all because the members opposite as usual do not listen.

We know what the purpose of their bill is; we know they are not addressing the problem. But the purpose of my speech is so that hon. members across the way can accept some constructive criticism and perhaps solve the problems that truly face this nation and we can get on with an action plan for this country, not a discussion plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to improve service to clients, to allow for more efficient program administration and in the case of the Old Age Security Act, OAS, and the Canada pension plan, CPP, to increase consistency between these programs.

To the degree to which technical items in this bill achieve those ends we certainly support this bill.

However, let us look at these major programs and the need to address them not only from a purely technical point of view but at the programs and their viability and their serviceability and their achievements. Are they doing what they are intended to do?

This brings the operations of the various pieces of legislation more into harmony with one another and it does correct various minor flaws and omissions in the legislation. It addresses the section on appeals and on confidentiality of information.

The only significant change that exists is that under clauses 9 and 23 of the act affecting clauses 18 and 37 of the OAS act, the crown can now attempt to recover accidental overpayments from more than a year ago provided this would cause no undue hardship. Inquiries should be made in the human resources development committee as to whether this really is the meaning of this section and if so how significant such a provision could be financially and why it was made.

What about the big picture? The government has been in power for one year. The government prepared to be in power for four years and developed the red book, the infamous Mao red book.

During the election campaign the current Prime Minister travelled across the country holding up this red book, pronouncing that he had the people and he had the plan. Where he did not have the people he duly appointed them in those ridings where they could not get elected.

Now he finds out that the plan, which is not very democratic in my opinion, he and the finance minister and many others in the front row on the benches of the government had was no action plan whatsoever.

What has this government accomplished after one year? It has the plan. It supposedly has the people. Here we are 12 months after almost to the day when this government took over. After cancelling the EH-101 contract, after cancelling the Pearson airport contract, after reversing its election campaign promise on NAFTA, which of course we supported-it finally saw the light on that one-what has it done? As far as legislation in this House, we have had housecleaning bills, housecleaning bills and more housecleaning bills.

In January the first bill brought before this House was Bill C-2, an act to amalgamate the Department of National Revenue and taxation with customs and excise in an effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This is the very same justification and tremendous adjectives and rhetoric it is using to promote this bill. It is a small technical bill and the government makes it appear it is doing great wondrous things for seniors and pensioners.

What did that bill accomplish from back in January earlier this year, efficiency and effectiveness? They have been really effective at the borders. They are seizing books they should not seize. They have been really effective collecting taxation. Since they took over there is $6 billion in taxes uncollected. There are more dollars uncollected in GST. The more we look into this the more we find out that this government has done less instead of

more, the more we find out that this government is less efficient and effective than more.

Today we have before us Bill C-54, another housecleaning bill and the government makes it sound as if it is better, improved, more efficient and more effective.

I ask the Canadian public to listen to what this government says, to what its front benchers say because the difference between what it says, what actually happens and where we will end up is like day and night.

Let us get back to this bill specifically. Let us look at the Canada pension plan, the CPP. It is a compulsory pension plan based on earnings. Upon retirement it pays 25 per cent of former salary up to $8,000 per year. Only former contributors are eligible. CPP is left out of the federal budget and not included in the analysis. The annual cost is $13.2 billion for the government's share of this program.

The present value of the Canada pension plan based on some sound assumptions is several billions of dollars. The payments will have to rise 6 per cent to 7 per cent of income or an increase of three to four times for Canada pension if we keep the current method of funding. Will future generations be able to afford this? Will the young Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General be collecting his money like he earlier said he would?

Why not begin now to fix the problem? It is ignored by the finance minister in his planning for economic development. It is ignored by the finance minister in his budgetary process and it is ignored in this bill.

The present value of public service unfunded liability just for the federal government is $100 billion. This number was given to the finance committee as recently as last night by a prominent economist. Once again, why not begin to fix this problem of unfunded insurance now?

When the finance minister declares that Canadians do not want to make cuts, when the Prime Minister declares that Canadians do not want to make cuts, because as the prebugdetary consultative process goes across this land and as they discuss with Canadians and in committee as to what they should do and what they cannot do, it will be the special interest groups that will organize, flood and distort the prebudget conferences which primarily exclude the rank and file average Canadian.

The finance minister and the Prime Minister will announce that they have no choice but to raise taxes, first of all because of their commitment and because come hell or high water, as said by the finance minister, he will meet his deficit targets.

When both the finance minister and the Prime Minister have a ready made excuse, which is what this whole two month process is all about the way I see it, they will look to raising taxes.

As recently as yesterday the finance minister said if the Canadian public will not look at cuts, if the Canadian public will not look at the sound economic planning of the finance minister, they have no choice but to raise taxes because of their commitment in the red book.

The finance minister will have to look to RRSPs for taxes. He will do that because it is too obvious. It is too big an area to leave untouched. It is too tempting. It is too easy. He just needs the excuse and it will be there.

These prebudget hearings are merely invented to help the government, the finance minister and the Prime Minister to develop an excuse based on the results of the so-called deliberations across this great land to interpret these submissions to their own pleasure at the expense and pain of the Canadian taxpayers.

In any case, when he does look at taxing RRSPs I hope he proceeds to consider the following. I hope he does not tax RRSPs. If he does I hope he also then adheres to the principle of fairness which was enunciated in the red book, which is enunciated by the finance minister in his purple book, which is enunciated in the grey book by the finance minister. We now have three books that are committed to the principle of fairness.

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Standing Orders I understand that when members ask ministers of the crown questions in question period they do not necessarily have to answer. In debate and under questions and comments do members of Parliament have to answer?

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

On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I had overestimated the member's age. Now that I know his age I would like to ask him again whether he feels there will be sufficient moneys in CPP. The CPP question he did answer. He feels there will be. On the OAS, the second question I asked, does he feel an entitlement to receive whatever the monthly payment may be in the future just because he reaches age 65 should he be above the minimum wage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a few years away from becoming a senior. The hon. member is many more years away from becoming a senior; it is way out there in front of him as he points out.

Based on the hon. member's age and notwithstanding the contributions he is making to the Canada pension plan now, all of us know there is an unfunded liability there that we are not currently accounting for that we are all paying. Knowing that, does he believe there will be sufficient funds in the account? Does he believe that future generations will be able to make the size of premium payments required for this hon. member to receive his CPP when he reaches the age of 65, whether or not he elects to get it at an earlier age? If he does not believe that, what does he think this government should do about it?

The other issue I would like to touch upon is a little closer to my heart. There is another fund that we look after in our social programs. We in the Reform Party, as do government members-they have said it often enough-care about the truly needy. We care about providing services, funding and facilities for those people who really and truly need it. The problem in our government today however is that we have not spent enough time and effort to establish where that line is, or the grey area where it is, so that we can start helping those people.

OAS is an unfunded program currently which nobody since 1971 has paid into. I would like the hon. member, based on his youthful experience, to say whether he believes that 25 years from now or 35 years from now, whenever he reaches the age of 65, he should receive $386 per month as his reward for becoming 65. If he does not need it, should he receive that money? If his income is below a household average or a certain minimum income level, then I believe we all should get it should we be so unfortunate, the two of us, that when we are 65 we need that help.

These two questions are meant to be serious questions. I am not playing games here. These are two issues that play hard on my mind. I am grappling with them and I want to come up with some solutions.

Would this member tell me whether there will be money there for CPP, and does he feel an entitlement to his OAS payments when he reaches 65?

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is a very important debate, so I would like to call a quorum please.

[Taxation, October 19th, 1994]

Keep laughing while you go further in debt. Enjoy yourself now.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we agree but there might be some on the government side who might want to change their minds.