Fred Mifflin

[National Defence, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that was the question and my answer is still the same. The Minister of National Defence will return and address that question tomorrow or later this week.

[National Defence, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this important question. The minister will be back in the House tomorrow and will address that question himself.

[National Defence, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. Turkey is the country we are negotiating with. The sale of these aircraft to Turkey or to any other country will be subject to the strict rules and regulations that are applied by the Department of Foreign Affairs and other controls that Canada has which preclude the sort of thing the member is concerned about from happening.

[National Defence, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the CF-5s were bought some years ago as the main fighter and were superseded by the CF-18. As he also knows, the CF-5 fleet is being retired as a result of the white paper on defence and policy review. The intent is to sell them to another country, if possible.

Some countries have indicated some interest, but there is one country in particular where we believe there is a good opportunity to sell the CF-5s. The negotiations are continuing and we hope to have positive results in the near future.

[Income Tax Act, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's on this proposed piece of legislation. I think it is an excellent initiative and I support the proposal he has made without hesitation.

I do not think there is a member of Parliament in this Chamber who at some time or another early in the game has not heard from a disabled senior citizen who has not been able to find the financial means to survive like other members of our society.

Speaking of seniors in general, we have a large number of seniors in Canada and it is continuing to grow. In 1971, 8 per cent of our population consisted of senior citizens. In 1991 the census figures showed 12 per cent of Canadians were senior citizens.

The growth is very rapid. The latest figures I have seen show that by the year 2036 we expect to have somewhere in the vicinity of 25 per cent of Canadians as senior citizens. This I believe gives even more impetus to the suggestion the hon. member has made.

To recap, I will use some of the figures that may be slightly different from his, however the point is still the same. The purpose of the bill essentially is to make it more fair for disabled seniors, quite a few in Canada. Specifically, it removes the requirement for seniors to have to pay, to have to reach a threshold or to have spent a total of $1,614 or 3 per cent of their income, whichever is the lesser-it is usually the lesser based on the 3 per cent-before they can deduct the 17 per cent of their medical expenses; in other words, to get some return for an expense on necessity.

Why would we make this proposal? Yes, it is out of compassion and it is out of dignity. However, there are some figures that support the reason we should be proposing and supporting this. First, disabled seniors make less and pay more for medical expenses. The figures quoted by my hon. colleague are accurate. The average income tax return in 1991, the year for which the figures are solid, was $25,639. That was the average income for those people who filed taxes. The average income for a disabled senior was $23,069. That is 10 per cent less than the average income filed.

The average expense for medical deduction was $1,580, whereas the average expense for a disabled senior was almost twice that amount, $2,716. There is one reason we should seek compassion and consideration for disabled seniors.

The second reason is that not only is their income lower, the income is based on the average, but the median income, the income that is the most recurring, not necessarily the average, the one that is basically what most of the disabled seniors earn or make, is closer to a low income level.

I agree with the figures suggested by my hon. colleague. The last time I checked the figures of the 21,000 disabled seniors in the province of Newfoundland whom I represent, 18 per cent are from low income families.

We have a group of people who deserve compassion, dignity and to be given some more hope than the average person who is not disabled or senior who can perhaps more afford to absorb the expense.

I am very conscious that I am part of a government in which the hon. Minister of Finance is trying to scrape the barrel to find every cent he can. I think every member in this House is conscious of that no matter where we stand on the issue of the budget and how it is executed.

The fact of the matter remains that for the number of disabled seniors this would help, we are looking at a sum of less than $3 million. Three million dollars is a lot of money to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is a lot of money to me. What is it in the overall expenditure of things considering the target and the group of people we are looking at?

Consider that we give in the vicinity of $5 billion to business and it says it does not really need it and does not use it well.

There are a lot of loopholes that have been discussed in this House tonight, yesterday and before the Christmas recess. It is the subject of many recurring media reports.

Against that backdrop $2.7 million is not a great deal of money.

I have talked about the seniors we have. I also have to remind members that of the seniors in our country, 46 per cent have some kind of a disability. Of that percentage of 46, 84 per cent live in households. In other words, they do not live in institutions where medical care, wheelchairs, hearing aids and visual aids are available to them.

Specifically, of those who live in households, 20,000-plus or 8 per cent need mobility assistance and cannot get it. Thirty-one per cent need hearing assistance and cannot get it. Ten per cent need visual assistance and cannot get it. Why?-it is not because it is not available, it is because they cannot afford it.

I would suggest if this private member's bill were passed it would certainly ease the burden on that group of Canadians which is least able to afford the expense to basically enjoy the necessities of life.

There is another statistic that I did not recall from my hon. colleague. I was also told that of the expenses that seniors who are disabled spend out of pocket, 20 per cent is for prescription and non-prescription drugs. That is one-fifth of their out of pocket expenditure. That also gives some indication of the magnitude and the importance of this particular bill.

I am like most other members in this House. I have 72 seniors groups in my riding. I have visited practically all of them. I have never visited one from which I have not come away inspired; inspired by the leadership they provide their community in helping themselves, in providing activities and staying very much alive.

I also find they are a great inspiration to the younger members of the community, showing them how to live by providing examples of life as it can be lived and, perhaps more than anything, showing all the communities I represent and which other members of this House represent the whole idea of picking themselves up by their boot straps and moving together in co-operation so that the synergism of the groups and the individuals in the groups amounts to more than the sum of the separate individual members. In my riding the largest group has

about 80 members and the smaller groups in some of the smaller communities sometimes have ten members, sometimes less.

My point is yes, dignity; yes, compassion, but also hope. This measure would indicate to the seniors that kind of compassion that Canadians from all sides of this House have for them and for their well-being.

[National Defence, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the management of personnel in the Canadian forces is a complex task with many different dimensions.

He also knows that the military career requires a much greater degree of mobility than any other segment of Canadian society. This imposes stress on individuals and their families and a much greater burden on the organization itself, considering their families. I am quoting from a report which the hon. member signed.

[National Defence, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am sure it is posed within the context of his concern for Canadian forces personnel.

In response to his question I have three points to make. The first one is that the program he talks about is called imposed restriction. It is related to the mobility that Canadian forces members have compared to any other part of Canadian society.

The second point I would make is that there are 900 members of the Canadian forces involved or less than one per cent and 65 per cent of them are non-commissioned members.

The third point is if he has any indication the regulations are not being followed properly and there are some unauthorized things happening, I think he owes it to the Canadian public to be more specific to me and to the minister.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to tell you this is a very serious subject as Christmas approaches and our peacekeepers are in a foreign land doing peace operations. I certainly respect the viewpoint of the hon. member.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker and I am sure the hon. member would not mind sharing this with me that he along with the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo spent some time in ex-Yugoslavia.

We have some feeling for what we are all talking about. It may differ on all sides of the House. I will not get political about this. The hon. member talked about the peacekeepers and the arms embargo. I have a son who is in the arms embargo business. He is a combat systems engineer at HMCS Toronto . As the hon. member knows, he and I worked at Halifax on the Preserver . He wants to come home for Christmas. He understands why he is there.

I will say to the hon. member we met other people. I will not mention my constituents because that could be misconstrued. I will mention classmates of my son: Andrew Napper, Rob Stoney, Colin Blais, and Stephen Brown who met us at the aircraft that took us from Zagreb to Sarajevo. It was an interesting flight. We were not sure if we were going to make it. They understand why they are there.

I want to set the record straight. The hon. member on September 21 talked about the committee that we both served on, and I may say to his constituents he served honourably and well. I want to remind the hon. member of what he said. I am sure my hon. colleague will remember this. He said: "What makes this defence committee report so important? The committee spent months hearing testimony by Canadians from all walks of life. Hundreds of testimonies have been heard in the presentation".

This is what the hon. member signed his name to. As a committee we have stated clearly our conviction that Canada's interest and responsibilities extend beyond our borders. These are true matters in defence and security as in the economics sphere.

I do not want to throw this at the member. I know that he comes from a serious motivation. He did quote what France did. I am now quoting what he said as a member of a Canadian organization which was the first time in 60 years that Canadians have had their politicians go and ask the question of Canadians: "What do you want to do in defence?"

He would have to agree with me that they said: "You should continue to do what you are doing". We may have to change at some time but at this particular point in time our Prime Minister has said: "We believe that we should stay".

I am sure the hon. member, as most of our colleagues, would respect that.

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question on the Crow benefit raised by my hon. colleague, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

It is not as simple as he makes it sound. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food together are currently in the process of meeting with shareholders in the grains and oilseeds industry regarding changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act, which I will call WGTA for short.

Under the new GATT regulations the WGTA on shipments through the west coast and Churchill fall within the definition of an export subsidy. These subsidies must be reduced, as he knows, under the terms of the new GATT. This means that we have choices. We can change the WGTA so that it is no longer an expert subsidy, or we can pay the railways but only within the new GATT rules.

The second option would lead to an immediate and severe restriction on the volume of grain shipped through the west coast and Churchill that would be eligible for subsidies. In other words as volume limits for products were reached, shippers would suddenly be saddled with the full WGTA rates on shipments.

Given this context there are now two proposals which have been put forward as alternatives to paying the railways. The first, presented by the producer payment panel last June, recommends payments to producers based on cultivated acres and then gradually phasing into payments based on arable acres. It also recommends some of the WGTA be put into safety nets and research.

However the second proposal put forward by the Government of Alberta and endorsed by the present Saskatchewan government recommended provincial variations in the program within a set a principles. It also recommended against putting WGTA money into safety nets.

After their current discussion with all interested parties about these two options, and perhaps other suggestions may come up, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport will make a comprehensive set of recommendations to cabinet about the overall reform to the Canadian grain handling and transportation system.

These recommendations must be fiscally responsible and consistent with our international trading obligation, as the hon. member knows. They must also reflect the concern of all those in the grains and oilseeds industry. In finalizing the government's position with respect to the WGTA we must ensure that Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers are positioned to take on the world and to win.

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, regarding the impact of service resulting from VIA's recently announced job cuts.

As he mentioned, these job cuts are part of VIA's strategy to improve its operating efficiency and bring the costs of its operations in line with its reduced funding levels. In itself, this objective is no different from that of any other crown corporation or company in the private sector.

The challenge that VIA faces is it has to reduce its operating costs by $100 million by the end of 1996-97 while maintaining as much of the existing rail passenger services network as possible. This is no ordinary feat. To meet that challenge VIA management must rethink the way it does business. All work practices that have been the mainstay of past railway operations

have to be re-evaluated and streamlined throughout the organization.

The job cuts announced on October 13 affected people at all levels of the corporation from senior management positions to the workshop level. The minister mentioned that in his answer on the day of the question. This provides an indication that VIA management is serious about taking the necessary steps to assure its long term viability.

The review on the future of VIA services is not yet completed. It is part of the recognition by the government that we must address our national deficit, the size of which makes it a problem for all Canadians and not just an item on the previous government's agenda. For its part, VIA management has demonstrated that it is ready to meet its current challenge.

With the co-operation of its employees, its chances of succeeding are significantly improved as, hopefully, will service to the travelling public.