Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a major portion of Reform's so-called taxpayers' budget has to do with its radical proposals for a $15 billion cut in social security spending. This is an ill thought out proposal which we heard before from Reform during the social security reform process.

The reform of Canada's social programs is a necessary, valuable and timely exercise. Its impact will be better programs and services that deliver the best results. Its impact will be actions that meet our highest priorities. With those outcomes in the balance, it is a process that deserves thought, care and creativity.

To date, and I include today's debate in this comment, it is not a process to which the Reform Party has added much beyond shopworn clichés and one track slogans. That unfortunate reality was exemplified by the Reform members' contribution, if I can use that term, to the recent report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Much of the thinking, or lack thereof, that went into the Reform position also characterizes their interventions today.

Reform Party members appear to have a problem with social programs: they cost money. In their vision of Canada, families take care of their own and charities take care of the rest. This is just like the 1930s.

There is only one big problem for them in that vision: Canadians do not buy it. Canadians understand the value of social programs. They understand many of the flaws in the status quo and they want changes. However, they do not accept a social vision based on a déjà vu as the answer to every problem.

Today's Reform Party budget has a principle of equality of contribution which states that the burden of reduction must fall least heavily on the most vulnerable members of our society. Yet Reform's proposals would have completely the opposite effect.

Instead of helping those most in need, Reform Party members would cut seniors pensions by $3 billion. How would this help the most vulnerable in our society? They would eliminate all regional differentiation and all non-UI components. How would this help the poorest regions of the country, workers who need training or women who want maternity leave? They would cut aboriginal programs by 24 per cent. How would this help one of the poorest groups and arguably the neediest group of Canadians? They would cut equalization payments by $3 billion, or 35 per cent. How would this help the poorest regions of the country or Canadians who really need help?

These proposals would burden the most vulnerable members of our society, not help them. In the same vein, Reform's minority report was a sad collection of opinions desperately masquerading as fact. It showed the utter lack of depth in Reform members' thinking. It displayed a complete lack of attention to many of the important issues shaping our economy today, issues clearly outlined in the green paper released last fall.

Canadians deserve better and this government is determined to provide that. In my remarks I want to talk about the vision behind the government's perspectives on social security reform. I want to look at questions that face Canada and its social programs, questions for which the government has offered real proposals. I will then compare that to the silence or simplistic if not outright contradictory opinions of the Reform opposition.

Was the Reform minority report weak? This House may not simply take my word for it. Take the word of the hon. member for Calgary North. She was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen on February 8 that aspects of her party's report ``were not thought through very well before they were rushed into print''.

Canadians expect much more from their members of Parliament. I could not agree more and I can see no evidence of improvement in the position taken in today's debate. On an issue of this significance do Canadians not have the right to expect thoughtful analysis and vision? The government has done its part. Why have my hon. friends on the opposite side not done theirs?

Indeed, this government is committed to doing even more. Social security reform remains an integral component of the government agenda, rebuilding the system so that it meets the priorities of today and of tomorrow.

These are important issues and will meet the objectives set down in the green paper. What were they? It was to help Canadians get jobs and keep them. It was to help the most vulnerable in our society with the focus on child poverty. It was to do that in an affordable manner.

The report of the committee is one important contribution to determining how those changes will take place but of course it is not the only one. That takes me to the first point I want to raise in analysing the Reform's minority report.

The first issue the Reform Party raised was that of consultation. Reading Reform's comments one might think that this report was the beginning and the end of the consultation process, that some ideologically high bound government had decided to set up a sham process that would freeze Canadians out.

I ask these questions: Would this be the same government that has already received more than 40,000 social security reform workbooks from Canadians? Would this be the same government that has helped more than 200 members of Parliament hold town hall meetings on social security reform, drawing more than 20,000 people? Would this be the same government that has communicated with 7,000 people via Internet, 35,000 via a 1-800 number, as well as receiving 3,000 letters addressed to the minister directly?

This government is consulting. Reform Party members may not have liked to have heard from legitimate groups with valid perspectives as it travelled across Canada. They may have wished to have heard from more individuals, but you simply cannot make the leap from that complaint to the implication that there has been no opportunity for Canadians to offer comments. Far from it. This government has undertaken the most wide ranging consultation on any issue ever.

More than 100,000 Canadians have had their say in one way or another during the past year on this issue. Most Canadians do not accept the extremist views displayed by the Reform Party. They do not buy what Reform is peddling on social programs.

Canadians have made it clear that they want to see change, not destruction, and they are right. They believe governments must invest in people, address child poverty and support those individuals with low incomes. They are right. They believe we can do a better and more efficient job, and they are right. They want governments to work together and Canadians are right again. That is what the consultation process told us. That is what we, as a Liberal government, are prepared to do for the people of Canada.

The second issue the minority report raises is a complaint about the alleged lack of scope in this exercise. From the point of view of the Reform Party, all social programs are alike; they are all drains on the public purse and should be treated as such. Of course, this is not surprising.

The Reform symphony still only knows one tune, well over a year after its arrival in this House: the deficit is the only thing that matters. Of course the deficit matters. The government has been extremely clear on this issue. Our programs must be affordable. But the deficit is one consideration in designing a new social safety net. It is not the sole rationale for action or the sole test of options.

Reform's commitment to take $15 billion from social programs leaves so many unanswered questions. Time does not permit me to even start listing just a few of them. I am content to let Canadians ask Reform members instead. That is the Reform idea of scope.

For the government, the scope of this exercise is those programs and spending that relate to working, learning and security. The emphasis is on those programs that help people who are, could be, or will be in the labour market.

Health care does not fit this and it is undergoing its own study. The needs of seniors do not fit this and they will be discussed elsewhere. Canadians understand this. They understand that we want social programs that help people prepare for real jobs.

The so-called logic of the Reform Party would have included our defence and foreign policy reviews in this exercise. After all, does the deficit not matter in each of those too? No, the scope of this exercise is logical, intelligent and consistent.

That brings me to Reform's third issue of division in the committee's report and the green paper. Most of the Reform's position in both the minority report and today's debate is based on allegations regarding the government's vision of social programs and a mish-mash of ideas that Reform members trumpet as their own vision.

We can look and look through their comments and find a lot about the "how" of Reform's approach to slashing programs. What we will not see is any "why". Oh, there are claims about principles such as self-reliance and decentralization. But nowhere do we read a consistent, logical analysis of the social and economic issues facing Canadian families.

Nowhere do we find a thought through perspective on what social programs can do to help people and our economy. All we see is a series of other people's ideas and notes about programs that countries such as Chile and Singapore are trying. However, where is the social and economic vision to link them? There is not one.

What vision there might be lies between the lines. For example, Reform members continue to critique our work to expand the number of good quality child care spaces in Canada. In fact, not long ago they found one. It was an unpublished study which they claim shows that the product of child care will be a generation of depressed, stressed criminals. We are dealing here with people who read one report which has very little relationship to reality.

Given the real world, parents who must work to meet their family needs, how can they say those things? How can they ignore the mass of evidence that good child care can actually help kids, especially those from backgrounds which are far less privileged than those of the average Reformer?

Forcing women out of the workforce by drying up good quality child care is not my idea of a sound social or economic policy. However, stands such as that make the Reform vision for Canada obvious.

Now Reform members may say that is not fair, so let me ask my hon. friends to spell out the issues that face Canadians. What would be the most important priorities for social programs to address? How do we balance the competing demands for action, all of which have at least some legitimacy?

I ask this because I realize that in the world inhabited by the Reform Party there is only one issue, the deficit. There are no other challenges. Government should set aside all other priorities and just hack and hack until the debt is eliminated. That is the beginning and the end of their vision on any subject.

Obviously the deficit is a priority of the government. The need to bring expenses and revenues into line is essential. We are taking action to reach that goal, as we promised Canadians. However, Canadians expect governments to achieve many goals with intelligence, co-ordination and a sense of priority. The deficit is an important one, indeed a critical one, but it is not the only one.

Families, workplaces and the entire society have changed dramatically in the decades since many of the social programs were first envisioned. Unemployment insurance, social assistance and training programs were designed in days which were very different from today. Today workplaces are full of people who juggle home and family responsibilities, often as single parents. They take part time courses to develop new skills. They face uncertain career paths. Above all, they are required to be more flexible in every facet of their lives than ever before. They recognize their responsibilities but they also need some help.

Social programs can be improved to help people. We can identify the priorities for the limited funds that are available. That is the art of governing. It is what citizens have a right to expect from their government.

The proposals that the government has discussed with the provinces, business, labour, social action groups and all Canadians reflect that vision. All are rooted in the jobs and growth agenda which the Prime Minister set out in his speech in Quebec City at the Chamber of Commerce last September. As he noted, our social and economic priorities are linked closely together. We cannot meet the needs of Canadians without a strong economy. No strong economy is based on a society polarized into haves and have nots. We know social programs that respond to the most important needs can build our economy, even if the Reform Party does not want to believe it.

Let me discuss one aspect of our changing economy, learning. We are in a world in which skilled needs are changing faster than we can identify. We have a world in which people are challenged by new technologies and opportunities. The government's vision of social programs will realize the potential of these changes and help Canadians to harness them.

Compare that to the vision of the Reform Party.

I would ask my hon. friends where is their perspective on the training issues facing older workers? Where is their perspective on helping young people get real job skills that employers need in high technology fields? Where is the analysis of how to make life long learning work in an economy where people will change jobs and employers more often than ever before?

Any talk of a new economy is utterly absent in the comments of the Reform Party. The government believes in working with employers and workers to address the needs of their industries. Our work with sectoral councils has identified needs and initiated action plans.

What would Reformers do in the real world of these needs? Would they let the growth sectors of our economy wither? Would they claim that some magic tax cut will let them solve all of their problems? The government has done better.

For example, we have begun to address both the needs of industries and the employment problems facing young people through innovative partnerships. The government has entered into agreements with employers, workers and educators in fields such as horticulture, tourism and automotive repair under our youth internship program. We are working with them to develop the training that young people need to fill the skilled jobs that are available. We are working with them to create a climate that will attract even more job opportunities to our country.

Compare that to the do-nothing attitude of the Reform Party. We are working with provinces and territories to explore new and better ways of meeting the needs of people through our strategic initiatives program.

This example of federal-provincial co-operation is alive and well with many provinces. We are working with them on a pilot project called Integrated Training Centres for Youth. This is to help our young people.

I would like to conclude by saying that social security reform is a chance to recognize the real needs out there. The status quo does not meet them. It is a chance to cut today's suit to fit today's cloth and no one wants the tattered rags being flogged by the Reform Party.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this government has consulted extensively with Canadians in an unprecedented number of ways on whether and how Canada's social safety net should be improved.

These consultations as well as a number of independent polls show a clear consensus across all regions on the need for reform. Canadians want change and they want it now. In one poll 96 per cent of Canadians believe that some change must be made to social programs. In another poll after being questioned on all key proposals almost two-thirds of Canadians felt the government is moving in the right direction.

Support for the directions of reform has increased to 50 per cent in Quebec and has also increased in Atlantic Canada. During our consultations with Canadians over 600 organizations, including women's organizations, appeared before the committee. Over 100,000 Canadians participated in other consultations including town hall meetings, seminars and completing workbooks. Women's groups held a separate consultation process, as did aboriginal groups. We welcomed their contributions to the debate.

With respect to the hon. member's concerns regarding proposals to modify the unemployment insurance program, it should be pointed out that while income testing is one option being considered, 70 per cent of women who claim UI are not frequent UI claimants and would therefore not be affected by this proposal.

It should also be noted this government has taken concrete measures to address the concerns of female UI recipients. Recent changes to the UI program through Bill C-17 included a new 60 per cent dependency benefit rate for low income earners. To date nearly 78 per cent of claimants under this rate are women.

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 5,000 people from the riding of York North and throughout the greater Toronto area in response to the murder of Brian Baylen, an employee in the town of Richmond Hill.

The petition calls for amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The petition urges the government to allow more realistic maximum penalties for violent crimes, to redefine the term young persons and reform sentencing in the Young Offenders Act.

I thank the residents of York North and in particular Susan Chase, a constituent of York North who made such great efforts to bring these concerns to the attention of Parliament. I personally will undertake to bring this petition to the attention of the Minister of Justice.

[Stay In School Initiative, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House of the partnership being announced today in Toronto between the National Basketball Association and the stay in school program by my hon. colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of State for Youth and Training.

The stay in school initiative has become a community success story. The program encourages young people who are at risk of dropping out to stay in school longer and complete high school.

Significant gains have been made in expanding knowledge, action, collaboration, and moral obligation among Canadians to find solutions to the disturbing high school dropout problem.

As the Toronto Raptors and the Vancouver Grizzlies become household names to Canadians, they will become synonymous with championing this important issue.

[Youth Service Canada, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of State for Youth and Training I am pleased to announce that Youth Service Canada kicks into high gear today as it enters its regular operational phase.

Young Canadians have the ability and desire to contribute to our country. Youth Service Canada will give young people the opportunity to prepare for the challenges of the 1990s labour market and global competitiveness of the 21st century.

The federal government is calling on communities to plant a seed of hope in our youth. Any community based group, band council, or other organization interested in youth and community development can apply to sponsor a Youth Service Canada project. Applications and guidelines are now available through Canada Employment Centres.

It is my hope that members of Parliament will be instrumental in broadcasting the message to their constituents on this very important program.

[Employment, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his concern about seasonal workers.

I would like to make it very clear that the key objectives of the social security review are to help Canadians get jobs and keep jobs, to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society and to do that in a sustainable manner.

In the green book we speak about employment enhancement programs that include training and upgrading. It is essential for us to upgrade the skills of the Canadian public so that we can compete in the ever competing world in the 21st century.

[Social Program Reform, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question and also congratulate her on the excellent work she has been doing on social security reform.

A working group has been created by the government on seasonal work and UI. It is formed to look at practical solutions to the concerns of seasonal workers and the industry. The members represent a good regional balance as well as the interests of both seasonal and non-seasonal workers and employers. Its role is to engage interested parties from business, labour, industry and associations to provide guidance in this particular issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech.

I thought we were debating the redesign of the ISP. I want to ask the hon. member if he has any opinions on some concrete examples that would improve services for seniors because this is what the bill is about.

For example, it will only take half a day to process a simple OAS application which now takes around seven days to do. Processing time for an application for Canada pension plan benefits will drop from 13 days to one day. Telephone service will be improved so that 97 per cent of all telephone calls will get answered. Today only about 50 per cent get answered. Seniors will be able to make changes to information such as change of address over the telephone using a touch tone system. For clients who prefer personal service or who do not have a touch tone phone, staff will be available to answer their questions quickly.

These are real, positive changes that have an impact on the lives of seniors on an every day basis. The hon. member should be addressing issues that we deal with in this bill. However he has taken the opportunity to expand and talk about the social security review. The reality is that the government has been the first one in a long time that has had the courage to face up to some very difficult challenges and choices we have to make as a nation.

Thirteen per cent of the people in Canada are unemployed for a year or longer. Long term unemployment has increased three times since 1976. When 40 per cent of these people are faced with structural unemployment and 30 per cent of Canadians have problems with literacy and numeracy skills, one has to admit we have to move toward building a better and more efficient social security system that; first, helps Canadians get jobs and keep jobs; second, would help the most vulnerable and; third, is sustainable.

Another flaw in the speech delivered by the hon. member deals with the red book. I do not expect the hon. member to read the red book, among other books which he has not read. If he was to read the red book very carefully he will find these references. I want to cite them to the hon. member because I know he will be engaged in the social security debate. I am sure he does not want to give misinformation to Canadians.

If the hon. member would read page 16 he will find the red book commitment:

A Liberal government will adopt a series of measures to put Canadians back to work and foster economic growth.

Page 21:

It is our goal to help people on social assistance who are able to work, to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of Canada.

Page 22:

A Liberal government will work with all the provinces to use established funding mechanisms such as CAP in more innovative ways in order to move from passive to active support of people in need.

Other pages deal with issues we are dealing with in the social security review. It seems to me that the hon. member must take the time to read the red book, to read the green book, and in a very honest way also tell Canadians where the Reform Party is going to cut $15 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my very great honour to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-54, whose amendments which will assist over 3.5 million Canadian seniors, in particular the 1.4 million seniors currently receiving the spouse's allowance or the guaranteed income supplement.

The proposed amendments will enable these seniors, the majority of whom are women, to receive the benefits to which they are entitled with a minimum of red tape.

I am particularly pleased to speak on behalf of this bill because so many of its amendments display a unifying theme, namely establishing effective and efficient government and providing better service to the public while at the same time controlling costs.

This bill is a demonstration of our continuing commitment to both current and future seniors. It follows improvements to telephone service made earlier this year.

Members may recall that in February the Minister of Human Resources Development responded to public concerns raised by the Auditor General by ordering immediate action to ensure pensioners were able to get answers to questions about their benefits. These changes which involve the training of up to 200 additional client service officers and a $3 million investment to expand and upgrade existing telephone equipment has certainly been very effective.

In fact since May over 65,000 calls have been answered from clients in Ontario and New Brunswick alone. These clients would have had their calls go unanswered had the changes not been made.

The amendments we are introducing today will move us a few more steps down the road toward the administrative effectiveness and excellent client service which we all seek. They will also make it easier for you as members of Parliament to represent constituents in their dealings with the department.

I want to speak a bit about the reform of income security programs. The government is committed to providing Canadians with a more streamlined and efficient system. This is especially true in Human Resources Development Canada where this is not just some philosophical notion but rather a daily commitment to the clients who use the numerous employment, training, social development and income security programs which the department administers.

The redesign of our income security programs encompassing the old age security program and the Canada pension plan is a concrete example of this commitment. This project will vastly improve the efficiency and quality of service to Canada's seniors and pensioners. However, redesign is not something that happens overnight but it is indeed a continual process.

Fortunately there are changes which can be made right away and these are contained in the bill before the House. These include an alternative to the annual application process for income tested benefits under the old age security program; streamlined appeals process and procedures to expedite the hearing of appeals; one year retroactivity under the Canada pension plan for retirement pensions payable after age 65; the authority to forgive overpayments resulting from administrative error or erroneous advice; and a number of technical amendments which collectively enable the government to offer better service to seniors in a more efficient manner. Also in the bill is found changes to guaranteed income supplement and spouses allowance.

One amendment of the bill is of special significance to low income elderly Canadians, a disproportionate number of whom are single women. Under the Old Age Security Act a basic pension is provided to all those persons over the age of 65 who have met the residency period established in the act.

The basic pension is the foundation of the old age security program. In addition this program provides income tested benefits such as GIS and SPA. These two programs ensure that recipients have a guaranteed minimum income on which to live.

The amount of GIS or SPA an individual receives during the fiscal year is based for the most part on income in the previous calendar year. To obtain this information we have always required that our clients file a statement of income each and every year. The experience of experts in this area is that this can be an onerous and even frightening experience for many seniors.

I recently received a letter from a volunteer agency composed of seniors whose mandate is to ensure that other seniors are aware and able to take advantage of the services and benefits available to them. This group was asking if any alternatives to the current application/reapplication process had ever been considered. This question obviously flowed from its experience in dealing with problems caused by the current system. The woman who wrote on behalf of the group pointed out two significant areas of concern which these volunteers had encountered.

To begin with, renewal applications are sent out each January and must be returned by the month of March. This allows the new benefit amounts to be calculated in time for the April cheque.

The woman who wrote on behalf of the volunteer group pointed out that some of the older recipients in her province worry about being late in reapplying, so much so that many complete it as soon as it arrives in January. The problem is that people with some other source of income have not received their information slips by the end of January. As a result, these pensioners guess at what their income was in the previous year.

However, if they guess wrong it means that they either receive an underpayment or an overpayment on their April cheque. In the case of an underpayment, they may not receive sufficient money to live. In the case of an overpayment, recipients could end up having to pay money back to the government. As well, some recipients set this form aside for safekeeping in recognition of its importance and then forget to submit it when they receive their information slip.

Sadly, it is no longer possible for staff to contact those seniors who have not returned their forms by a certain date, since we now have more than one million supplement clients to serve each year. In any case, failure to file this form means that pensioners' old age security cheques in April would contain only the basic pension amount. At its worst, this could mean receiving roughly $388 instead of $848, a 54 per cent drop in income.

For someone relying on an income tested benefit to make ends meet, this is of course a devastating experience. At that point they need special help to get their forms completed and a cheque issued as fast as possible. This, of course, adds to administrative costs.

I am not saying that all pensioners, or even the majority of pensioners, have difficulty with the renewal process. However,

the fact is that there is a problem for some which is reason enough for this government to find alternatives.

An amendment to the Old Age Security Act contained in the bill would go a long way to alleviating these very real problems facing very real people. The amendment would give the Minister of Human Resources Development the authority to waive the requirement for an individual to reapply each year.

It will be some time before we are able to use this waiver extensively. However, some of the cases where this waiver could be used either immediately or in the very near future include the following: Pensioners whose income does not change from year to year, a situation common among more elderly seniors; pensioners whose only other source of income is the Canada pension plan, which means that my department already has the income information necessary to calculate the income tested benefits under the old age security program; and, pensioners who have already filed their income tax returns by the end of March.

For this group, the income information could be obtained directly from Revenue Canada. Obtaining information directly from Revenue Canada would do more than provide an improved client service. It would also reduce a great deal of duplication both for seniors and for the government. Seniors would no longer have to provide what is effectively the same information to two government departments. In turn, the role of the Department of Human Resources Development plays in the renewal process would become more efficient because it would get the correct information from Revenue Canada about an individual's income from the first.

This means that the underpayments and overpayments on many accounts would be eliminated. Efficiencies such as this would go a long way to streamlining service to the public, while at the same time reducing government expenditures. As well, there would be a reduction in the paper burden imposed on those who are least able to cope with it.

Other amendments in the bill would also have significant benefits for pensioners. The OAS appeal process is yet another example. It involves changes to the old age security appeal process. Currently any client dissatisfied with the decision under the OAS act may ask for a reconsideration which is an internal review of their file or the client can go directly to a review tribunal which is made up of three members, a representative of the client, a representative of the minister and a chair who is agreed by the other two.

There are a number of problems with this process which I feel the amendments will go a long way to alleviate. First we are proposing that the reconsideration stage be mandatory for all appeals, so that clients would be assured of a speedy review of their case to ensure that the decision they originally received was in fact the correct one.

Experience has shown that reconsideration is the fastest way to change the original decision, especially if an error occurred or if there was simply something lacking in the documentation submitted the first time around. This happens when clients bring forward new information that was not available when the original decision was made.

Second, we are proposing to have all OAS review tribunals heard by the review tribunals correctly in place under the Canada pension plan. As I am sure hon. members can appreciate, it is often very difficult to find three volunteers who are all able to be at the same place at the same time, during business hours, particularly in remote locations. In fact there are currently appeals under the OAS program that have been waiting to be heard for more than two years.

By contrast the Canada pension plan review tribunals in place since 1992 are proving very efficient. These tribunals are composed of three members chosen from a panel appointed for just this purpose. As a result we have a significant number of people who are committed to be available to take part in the appeal process in all parts of this very large country.

As well, because members hear a number of appeals during their tenure, they develop a very good working knowledge of the program on which they are being asked to adjudicate.

On the issue of war crimes, we are also proposing amendments which complement Canada's commitment to the international community in its efforts to bring to justice persons suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

To further the important work of the Solicitor General, the department is proposing amendments to the information disclosure provision of the Canada pension plan, the Old Age Security Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act by allowing the commissioner of the RCMP, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada access to information controlled by our department.

Canada is strengthening its ability to be a meaningful partner in this effort. I assure hon. members that this access will be strictly controlled and will be restricted to actions conducted by Canada in Canada.

On the information exchanges with veterans affairs, other changes to the information provisions contained in the Canada pension plan and Old Age Security Act will follow for expanded information exchanges in veterans affairs. Even though many of our clients are the same our ability to communicate with each other has been very limited.

In this time of economic restraint it is important that we govern as efficiently as possible. It is also important that people will receive their correct entitlements under various government programs. Better communications with veterans affairs will meet both of these objectives.

On the issue of pensioner activity I now want to outline a significant amendment to the Canada pension plan contained in the bill, significant because of why it is being made; that is, the introduction of a 12-month retroactivity period for Canada pension plan retirement applications by persons over the age of 65.

In 1987 with the introduction of flexible retirement under the CPP it became possible to receive an actuarially adjusted retirement pension from age 60 to age 70. The amount of an individual's benefit is based in part on the age at which the pension begins. Specifically the benefit is reduced by .5 per cent for each month an applicant is under age 65 or increased by .5 per cent for each month the applicant is over the age of 65.

To complement this change, it was felt that there was no further need for retroactive retirement pensions prior to age 70. If someone delayed applying for retirement pension past age 65, their benefit would be adjusted to reflect this fact.

However, in the ensuing seven years, there have been some complaints from people over the age of 65 who state that they would rather have had the option of receiving up to 12 months of retroactive benefits. This would be in lieu of the increase of up to 6 per cent in their monthly entitlement that a delay of 12 months represents.

This change is not significant if we look at the number of people who have requested it. However, ask any one of the individuals who wants to choose the retroactivity option and they will tell you how significant it is to them.

Usually they have delayed a few months in applying after their 65th birthday and they really cannot understand why they cannot get benefits back to that time. Frankly, neither can I. It is not a matter of costs since the extra months of payments are balanced by actual adjustments.

Another significant change proposed by this legislation relates to overpayments which occasionally occur under the Old Age Security Act. When overpayment was solely the result of an administrative error the Minister of Human Resources Development under this legislation would have the authority to give such an overpayment. This mirrors a provision that currently exists under the Canada pension plan.

Today I have outlined the major changes the government is proposing to OAS and CPP legislation. However there are several other technical amendments that will also help us better serve pensioners.

In conclusion, these amendments taken together will result in improved service to our clients, reduce administrative costs and significantly reduce duplication and paper burden both to our clients and to the government departments involved.

The amendments contained in this bill represent one more step in this government's commitment to providing Canadians with the excellent government services they deserve while at the same time reducing costs as much as possible.

Finally, the amendments in this bill will go a long way toward helping making life a little easier for our seniors who have after all made such a tremendous contribution to the building of this country.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.