Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, November 12, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I have for tabling a copy of the chlamydia prevention kit.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I have the 1997 annual report of the Yukon Utilities Board for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I have for tabling the Yukon Driver Control Board report to the minister.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 40: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As acting minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, I move that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the acting minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

Bill No. 7: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 7, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1996-97, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 7, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1996-97, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 7 agreed to

Bill No. 8: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 8, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98, be now introduced and read for first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader that Bill No. 8, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 8 agreed to

Speaker: Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Chlamydia awareness campaign

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of an important new initiative being undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Services through its health promotion unit. It reflects our government's policy of emphasizing a preventive approach to health.

This past April, the Yukon government became responsible for providing public health and public health education. Previously such programs were delivered by Health Canada or non-governmental organizations. This month, the department will introduce a new awareness campaign on a particular sexually transmitted disease.

The campaign revolves around chlamydia, which is now the most common sexually transmitted disease among young people in the Yukon.

In 1995, our rates of chlamydia were four times the national average. In 1996 alone, 40 new cases were diagnosed among youth between the ages of 15 and 19 years.

Mr. Speaker, chlamydia poses a serious threat to the reproductive health of infected women. Left untreated, it can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, ectopic pregnancy and even death.

Chlamydia is particularly insidious for women, as most infected females will have the disease for years without noticing any symptoms. Males, on the other hand, experience symptoms shortly after contracting the disease and are able to seek treatment. The objective of our campaign is two-fold. First, it is to educate youth about chlamydia and what it can mean to them, and secondly, it aims to reduce the rates within the Yukon.

The campaign, "Doing the Right Thing", is aimed at a specific target audience and is written in the language of teens. It will not be introduced initially through schools, but through community locations where youth will feel free to seek out information. We believe it is very important that everyone be aware of the program and its goals.

Those of us who are parents know it is often uncomfortable to discuss sexually transmitted diseases with our teens. It is even more difficult to admit to ourselves that they may be sexually active long before we would like them to be. Some teens are sexually active, however, and they need information to protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, teens today are becoming sexually active at a much earlier age, and the consequences they face are much more serious than those faced even two decades ago. The challenge is to give them knowledge and tools with which to protect themselves and then help them translate that knowledge into healthy behaviours.

The campaign tools, of which I tabled a copy, also include a brochure in the form of a CD case, a poster, a copy of which I have here, and advertisements on buses and radio. The campaign also includes condoms and an explanation of their use.

The campaign does not promote one lifestyle over another. It simply strives to provide youth with information. It will be supported in the high schools with a short educational program that complements the campaign.

Mr. Speaker, we are firm in our belief that we share responsibility for providing this information to the territory's young people. We share the responsibility with parents, with health professionals, and with the teens themselves, and we take our responsibilities very seriously.

Our ultimate goal is to reduce the rate of chlamydia in the Yukon by 50 percent by the year 2001.

In the short term, we expect and actually hope that the rate of reported chlamydia increases. This is one way that we will know that people are hearing what we are saying and getting tested to protect themselves. By continued educational efforts, as well as effective diagnosis and treatment, we can significantly reduce the rate of this disease in the territory. Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus, I offer our congratulations on this campaign to raise awareness of chlamydia, specifically amongst our teens.

I do have some reservations about the methodology of program implementation and ask the minister if, in his rebuttal, he would offer an explanation.

I refer specifically to the statement that the program will not be introduced initially through schools but through community locations where youth will feel free to seek out information.

With the lack of support for the YES program, and the closing of that facility, this is just one avenue that the minister has curtailed, and the whole exercise of this campaign is to get the information out to our youth and get it out there in a timely fashion. The best opportunity to deliver such a program is through our educational system, but that comes after, so while our party supports the program, in general terms, it would appear that this government is ignoring the best delivery mechanism, through our schools, and one of the most well-received youth centres, funded by YES, will no longer be available to them. The overall strategy of reducing chlamydia in Yukon by 50 percent would still keep it well above the national average, and I would hope that we could target our sights considerably lower than this reduction.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Just, perhaps, for a point of clarification, there was considerable discussion around how this should be addressed because of the nature of the sensitivities.

We have been in contact with school councils to advise them of this and we have indicated that we would be making a public education through there. We did not feel that, particularly at this point, we wanted to become involved in bringing it into schools without some discussion with school councils, and so on.

Where we are actually targeting, I suppose, is some of the areas of older young people, specifically of drinking age, and we are seeking cooperation with some of the licensed establishments in town to disseminate this information through them.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Yes, the member does say that it is 19 and up, but this is where we're going to begin our initial targeting, and we will be attempting this through other sources that young people have.

Cabinet Commission on Yukon Hire: progress report

Mr. Hardy: In keeping with our government's policy of involving people in decisions that affect them, I rise to inform the House that the Yukon hire commission has completed its final round of consultation.

We are now proceeding to draft recommendations for Cabinet on measures to ensure that Yukon government spending creates as many good jobs and economic opportunities as possible for Yukon people.

I would like to thank all the people who gave up time on evenings and weekends to participate in our eight workshops in October. Thank you also to all the individuals, businesses and organizations who gave us their thoughts and views and to all the people who called us with their ideas and concerns.

In our initial consultation, we went to every community in the Yukon and listened to everyone who wanted to speak to us. The Yukon people told us what their concerns and problems were and suggested numerous potential solutions. We made sure that all suggested solutions were included in our consultation paper.

Our final round of consultation focused on trying to achieve consensus on the solutions. We held four workshops in rural communities: Dawson City, Carmacks, Watson Lake and Haines Junction. We also held four in Whitehorse for different industry groups: construction, government purchasing and manufacturing, consulting and professional services, and cultural industries.

I was encouraged by the large number of participants and their willingness to share ideas and experiences. I believe that everyone who participated in these workshops felt it was a worthwhile exercise. I certainly learned a lot and I believe so did all the participants involved in the exercise.

I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, by the free and open exchange of views. We received many suggestions: some that are controversial, others that contradict each other. We even reached broad consensus on a number of issues such as better government planning, the need for better enforcement of the fair-wage schedule, and the opposition to a percentage preference policy which can be seen in the NWT. Choices will have to be made in areas where there was no consensus, but I believe people will understand why we make these choices.

We have a big job ahead of us putting together everything we heard, but we expect to be finished by the end of December, "on time and on budget", as we say in construction.

I would also like to thank the opposition for their ongoing comments about local hire. Judging by their stance, they completely agree with what the local hire commission is doing. I look forward to their continued support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hundreds of Yukoners who participated in this process that their voice has been heard clearly and that the recommendations the Yukon hire commission comes up with will carefully consider everything they have said to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: On behalf of the Liberal Party caucus, I'd like to respond to the commissioner's statement regarding the Yukon hire. I have attended, on behalf of our party caucus, two of the local hire consultation sessions, as the commissioner is fully aware, and the Liberal Party caucus is fully aware of how far along the local hire commission is in their consultations. We've followed their progress with interest. I'd like to thank the commissioner for his report today, for bringing the House up to speed on the progress.

I would like, however, to take issue with two of the comments, and perhaps the minister would care to elaborate on the one and listen to the other. The first point is that the commissioner has indicated that the local hire effort is on time and on budget.

We found this reference of particular interest, because we have never seen a complete, clear reporting of the direct costs associated with this specific commission. I would like to ask to have that information tabled.

The other point that I would just clarify for the commissioner is that the Yukon Liberal Party caucus is not in complete agreement with the Yukon hire commission. There are two major issues with some of the solutions that the commissioner has presented in his consultation round. There is the issue of the solution proposed by the commissioner of unionization of government and Crown corporation jobs and the issue of the transfer of municipal funds with local hire provisions attached.

As we have discussed at great length with other pieces of legislation, other items and items for discussion presented by this government, there is the issue of enforcement or, in this case, implementation. I would trust that when the local hire commissioner presents the solutions and recommendations to this House - to the government - there will be an implementation schedule attached and an implementation work program, which would indicate clearly how the government intends to have the affected parties buy into the program.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy: It is interesting that the member opposite says that she attended two workshops. The first workshop, she didn't attend. She attended the introduction and the briefings, but she didn't participate in the workshops and stick around for when the real work happened and when the hard work happened. I don't know where she was.

For the second workshop, she attended the supper, but she didn't participate in any of the workshops again. She sat in a room with a friend and spent two and one-half hours socializing and never participated in the workshops. Her comments have to be taken in the context of her own background and how much she placed value on this. You can't go to a workshop, sit outside the door, and say you participated. I think it's very misleading to the public to do that.

Concerning another one of the points that was raised regarding the union-hire option, there were 14 options raised. One of them was union. Why do they only focus on union? I'll tell you why they only focus on unions - because they are fundamentally opposed to the formation of unions. Fundamentally.

It is very clear.

There's a comment from the paper - the member opposite, from Porter Creek South, says, "Unions have a place - but the place isn't in the Yukon." I'm adding the last part now, but I'm assuming the place is the Yukon. She says that unions have a place, followed by another comment, "More work, not more union hire."

What does that say to us? We present what the people say. Many of the people suggested unions as a way to increase local employment. Should we ignore that statement? Should we just say to them, "That word's bad. Unions are bad because the Liberals across do not like them" Should we take that position? Should we hide?

It's a suggestion that was given to us. I wish the member opposite would have participated in the workshop. She would have heard the other 14 options, and then she might be able to give an informed response to this.

Speaker: Does this then bring us to the Question Period?

QUESTION PERIOD

Education, mathematics grades

Mr. Phillips: My question is to Minister of Education and again it's regarding the recent math marks of Yukon high school students. Judging by the number of phone calls that I had received this morning since the media picked up on the questions that I asked last Monday, there's a very strong concern by parents out there about what's happening in our school system. Many parents are asking me why they didn't know that there was a problem. Many of the parents thought that it might have been just their own child who didn't do so well in the last set of marks and were surprised to hear that it is rather widespread.

I was surprised on Monday to hear that the Minister of Education didn't know that there was a problem. I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: is she is now aware that there is a crisis and does she plan to take any action to improve the math programs in our junior grades?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I think it's clear that the member opposite is still doing everything he can to raise fears and to take an alarmist approach. There have been some results of some term tests, and term marks are not necessarily an indication of the student's overall achievement for the year. The results in English and math are compiled and presented in Assessment Highlights - Yukon Territorial Examinations, on an annual basis. What those marks show for the 1996-97 years is indeed not a crisis.

Mr. Phillips: I'm sure that the math teachers in our high schools, the parents and the students out there are going to be quite concerned about the remarks made by the minister, that she doesn't think there's a problem at all. These are questions and tests and marks that are graded on the fundamentals, the basis knowledge of math. It is a signal, a clear signal, when 110 students out of 170-odd students fail to meet the grade. That's serious.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education if she would be prepared to publish now, and in the future, the results of these math marks so that parents, in general, and students will know that there is a trend and that action can be taken when they know that there is a trend.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the member's assertion that there is a crisis. The first term tests are teacher-based exams that are used by the teacher to determine what information has to be reviewed before introducing new materials.

I should also inform the member that he is speaking about first-term test results on a semester-based system and some schools teach math courses for the entire year. Yes, we will continue to produce assessment highlights on an annual basis and distribute the results of those assessment highlights on the results of the yearly territorial examinations in English and in math.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I'm not going to let the Minister of Education get away with dismissing this. The NDP may like mediocrity in our education system, but we don't. We want to see excellence in our education system.

What I'd like to ask the minister, if the minister feels that she is right and I am wrong, would the minister then ask an independent party, an independent individual who is knowledgeable in the education system, not anyone from the Department of Education, but an independent individual to come in and do an assessment in our math system in our schools to see how we're actually stocking up and then would the minister table that independent assessment in the House?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The member's comments are way off the mark. Our purpose is to meet the goals and objectives of the approved ciriculum in math, as in other subjects. Individual schools go a long way to help students to do well. There are tutors available in secondary schools to support students who require extra instruction in math. We have classroom teachers who provide tutorials outside of classroom hours. The member opposite just doesn't seem to be listening to the answers.

Question re: Block Parent program

Mr. Jenkins: My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

The news today reported that the Block Parent program in Whitehorse is in danger of closing down and being formally disbanded on November 29 because of the lack of interest, which is very unfortunate. The president of the Yukon Block Parents Association has stated that it's time to close the doors, at least in Whitehorse, and focus on other programs, like Neighbourhood Watch. The Block Parent programs in Watson Lake, Ross River and Haines Junction would have to be transferred to the B.C. Block Parent program.

Has the minister been in consultation with the association and has he offered the association any assistance, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, we have not been contacted by the Block Parents. Generally, this, I believe, is delivered through the RCMP or, at least, in association with the RCMP. As I understood it from the reports today, the issue surrounding Block Parents is the lack of volunteers available in the community, and I think that's the area where the association needs to be working, to recruit more block parents.

But, no, in short we have not been approached and, as I've said, I believe it is done through the RCMP.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Yukon Block Parents Association has raised the concern that the program is not being properly administered, that there are many Block Parent signs out there where the parents have not been properly screened or haven't been screened at all. This could create a potentially dangerous situation and I'd like to know if the minister has had discussions with the association or with the RCMP concerning this area.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I have to, once again, say that this really falls into the realm of Justice, but it is distressing that so many signs are out there that cannot be accounted for and I believe the association was suggesting that they would be looking at ways to encourage the retrieval of these signs and then examining the other options as to whether they would close down the existing program and reconfigure.

So, it is an issue but I believe it's working within their present configuration right now and I assume that they'll be bringing forward some ideas in that regard.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the minister advise the House what role his government is prepared to play in attempting to salvage this program, dealing with outstanding issues falling out of this program having been implemented. Or is he just prepared to see the program shut down, or is he going to hide behind some other board or committee. Is the minister going to do anything, Mr. Speaker, in this regard?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious concern for the government and we want to ensure we're not doing anything that will place children at risk. I can tell the member that the Deputy Minister of Justice will be meeting with the president of the Yukon Block Parents Association to review the situation about the safety of children and secondly to look at ways that it might be possible to revise the program in Whitehorse.

Question re: First Nations cultural funding in schools

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, a review of First Nations education programs in the Yukon was completed early this summer, and one of the areas reviewed by the consultants was First Nations curriculum and cultural support. With specific reference to the cultural support funds granted to each school each year, the report says that most schools receive between $400 and $700 per year. The report says, "All stakeholders agreed that there is a need to provide such financial assistance as a means of stimulating and supporting these initiatives by schools."

Will the minister explain in the context of the Better Way and this government's commitment to partnerships why, when all the stakeholders agreed that there's a need for this financial support, the budget for cultural support has been slashed to $150 per school per year?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, First Nations curriculum and cultural support is an important initiative within the department and in the schools in the Yukon. I have to tell the member that the report that was prepared jointly for First Nations and for the Yukon government has not been implemented and that there will be ongoing work between First Nations and the government.

As far as the work on curriculum development for First Nations programming, that's ongoing work not only with individual schools but within the curriculum branch of the department.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the money that I was discussing was the money for cultural support, and according to the report, the amount of money generally restricts the activity to only one event per school per year. The monies used for cultural activities limits what can be done. A few respondents maintain that the budget permits them only to stage a "bannock and beads day".

As she stated this particular funding is important to the department, will the minister commit to restoring funding to this program?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I'm unable to indicate what will be contained in the next year's budget. When the budget is prepared, it will be brought before the House, and I'm sure we'll have full debate on all of the elements of the Education budget as with other departments at that time.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated she is committed to partnerships except when she doesn't agree or can't afford them.

Will the minister explain, if funding is not restored, how she intends to fulfill the requirements under the Education Act, specifically section 55 that "Every school shall include in the school program activities relevant to the cultural heritage traditions and practices of the Yukon First Nations served by that school"?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, we're going to be continuing doing good work with individual school councils and individual schools on what occurs in their schools. We're also going to continue with curriculum development work by the department to increase and improve First Nations cultural activities and curriculum support.

Question re: Whitehorse Correctional Centre, maintenance

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the same minister, with her Minister of Justice hat on, about the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. I understand that, at the request of the minister's department, Mr. Roberts of Correction Service Canada has prepared a report on the condition of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. I understand also that this report - let's call it the Roberts report - confirms the findings of previous reports that there's little point in making patchwork repairs to the jail. Is my information correct?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, there has been a report that the member referred to as the Roberts report prepared.

Mr. Cable: The minister is a master at the non-answer. She was quoted on March 27 of this year, on a CBC special report, as saying - and this is in the context of the discussion on the jail - "While I think it is important to continue with the ongoing maintenance and with fixing any health and safety risks, and in fact the overall safety and security is maintained in a manner that is comparable to national correctional standards, that has to be done in the meantime until a decision is made to replace the facility."

Would the minister assure this House and the public and the staff at the jail and the inmates that the Whitehorse Correctional Centre at the present time meets national correctional standards?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: We're ensuring that the work that needs to be done to keep Whitehorse Correctional Centre up to standards is being done on an ongoing basis. There's been considerable discussion in this House about the various improvements that have been made. I can certainly bring a list of those back for the member or reiterate them for him, so I guess the answer would be yes.

Mr. Cable: I understand that this report - the Roberts report, if we can call it that - says that to bring the jail up to national correctional standards would cost more than to replace the jail. This would seem to differ somewhat from the inference from the minister's answer.

Would the minister commit to making the Roberts report public, so that we can all have a look at it?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: With previous reports that have been made available to the opposition, they've first been reviewed as to what elements of the report are available under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There may be some reasons why the report could not be released in its entirety. I will take the member's request and get an answer back to him.

Question re: Centennial anniversaries program

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Tourism regarding a tourism project.

I spoke to the Minister of Economic Development the other day about the CAP proposal. I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism a question about the Whitehorse CAP proposal. I would like to ask the minister if the technical committee rejected the Whitehorse CAP proposal because it didn't meet the Tourism criteria.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As the acting Minister of Economic Development, I will take the question as notice. I will point out to the members opposite that the reason why the centennial anniversaries program is being administered by the Department of Economic Development is a secret, I guess, that only the members opposite can tell us, because, of course, this program, even though there seems to be a lot of interest between the Tourism critic and Tourism minister on this program, the Yukon Party government established the program under the Department of Economic Development, presumably for good reasons, and expected the Minister of Economic Development, as has been the case in the past, to answer questions about it.

Now, the Minister of Economic Development has been trying to provide this member with the government's position on the CAP project, and if there are any further technical details the member might wish to explore, the minister or I, if I can get the information sooner, will provide the information to the House.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting. I asked a Tourism question the other day, and the Minister of Economic Development answered. I asked one today. He's not here and the Government Leader answers. It must mean that the Minister of Tourism doesn't have the background or knowledge of the tourism side of these initiatives. That's unfortunate. I guess he's been floating around in his boat on Teslin Lake all summer and isn't aware of what's going on.

The Minister of Economic Development said yesterday that he has asked the local group with the Whitehorse CAP proposal to provide more of a tourism component. Can the minister table the letter or correspondence that it sent to the Whitehorse group outlining where the particular proposal fell short, and could he table it in the House tomorrow so that we can all see what the problem is?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, far from sitting on his hands, the Minister of Tourism, as everyone will know, was busy signing our Transat deals with airlines, which will ultimately bring more people to the territory, directly from Germany. I would say that that's a fairly laudable project, and not only that, but I think the tourism industry agrees with me. Obviously, the member opposite does not.

The Minister of Tourism is not responsible for the program; the Minister of Economic Development is, thanks to a decision made by the Yukon Party. Now perhaps the Yukon Party wants us to amalgamate the two departments, but we have no plans to do that. Perhaps that's what they're angling for us to do. That's another issue too.

I will take the question as notice about the tabling of information that will help the member understand the issue in its entirety, and if I can table it tomorrow, I will.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I should get it on the record that I approved of the Air Transat deal and in fact I congratulated the Minister of Tourism, but I think the Minister of Tourism and I both know who did the work. The minister signed the document. It was the marketing people who did all the work. The minister just went over as a figurehead and signed the document; he didn't do anything other than that. He knows that and I know that.

It was unfortunate that, when we were in government and we worked out the initiatives with the same marketing branch worked out initiatives with Canadian Airlines that brought far more people to the territory, the side opposite criticized the initiatives of the marketing branch and of the Minister of Tourism of the day.

I would like the minister to bring back any correspondence whatsoever he has had with the continual extension of the deadlines for the Whitehorse group, and if he could tell us if the technical committee - the bureaucratic committee - turned down this proposal. My information is that they turned it down.

So, the decision to go ahead any further is purely a political decision, and I'd like the minister to confirm that it is a political decision to go to the next stage.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will table what information I can, but in the first instance I will make it clear that when the government speaks, they speak as one voice. Secondly, I will certainly ensure that there is full information on the table.

I want to point out that when I mentioned the Air Transat deal, the member - off the record - said "We were aware of that one." That's common parlance for, "You will regret having taken credit for that particular program because, presumably, it's doomed to fail." Well, I don't agree with him at all.

And I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that, in all these arrangements, clearly there is good work going on in terms of negotiating Air Transat deals or any other tourism marketing venture or anything else in the government. A lot of good people in the various departments do a heck of a lot of work for this government, and I must point out that, when the member was the Minister of Tourism, we had no idea that there was a department. It seemed to us that he was doing it all on his own.

Question re: First Nations cultural funding in schools

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Education.

I'd like to ask the minister further questions about the review of the First Nations education program.

The report is dated July of this year and I understand from the media reports that the minister was to meet with the Council of Yukon First Nations leadership to discuss the recommendations. Would the minister indicate if a time line was established for instituting the recommendations in this report?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: We had a preliminary meeting with the Council of Yukon First Nations and do not have a firm time line for the next steps, although we will be meeting again.

Ms. Duncan: Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that. However, I'd like to ask her specifically about recommendation number 4 in the report. It states that the Yukon government should give consideration to CYFN, Council of Yukon First Nations, demands to assume a greater role in the YNTEP governance. In these preliminary discussions with CYFN, did the minister reach an agreement or an undertaking with the Council of Yukon First Nations to turn the YNTEP program over to them?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As I'm sure the member is aware, the Council of Yukon First Nations speaks for 10 First Nations in the territory and there are other First Nations who are not part of that umbrella organization. Although we have had, as I indicated to the member in the previous response, some first discussions with the Council of Yukon First Nations and with leaders from most First Nations in the territory, the specific matter of the YNTEP programming has not been discussed or resolved.

Ms. Duncan: One of the notable facts outlined in the report is the decreasing intake or participation by First Nations in the YNTEP program. As the minister indicated, there has been no agreement reached to turn over the program to CYFN. What specific steps does the minister intend to take to increase participation in this program?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware that the Yukon native teacher education program is a degree program offering a bachelor of education to First Nations students. The credentials are offered through the University of Regina. The program is governed by an agreement with a coordinating committee that includes the University of Regina, the Yukon College, the Department of Education, and First Nations. I think it's important that the member understands how the program operates and who is on the program committee that oversees its operation.

The question of improving the enrollment is one that concerns the government and one that concerns First Nations themselves. Measures have been taken to improve enrollment.

Question re: Teachers' wage settlement

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Government Leader on collective bargaining. Yukon teachers are feeling betrayed by this NDP government in their recent wage settlement. Because of the fact that the Government Leader wasn't upfront about the $48 million surplus left to him by the previous government - in fact, his negotiators at the table were telling teachers that there was only about $21 million, and it was all used up - I'd like to ask the Government Leader why in opposition they were so vocal in saying that "the two percent wage rollback wasn't needed, wasn't required, and we're dead against it," yet in government, with a $48 million surplus, they did not offer to give it back to the teachers. What's the reason for this flip-flop?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no flip-flop at all.

First of all, in response to the member's preamble, the information on the government's finances was made known to the Yukon and to all public sector employees, in the first instance, in the submission that was at the bargaining table; secondly, in the submission to the arbitrator; and, finally, by me through a pre-budget consultation when most public and private sector union people were sitting at the table. So the information that was known to me and the information that has been made available to the House was made known to unions as well, so I don't know why there would be any feeling of betrayal, frankly.

Secondly, if we want to recall back to the concerns of 1993-94, I recall the government running a $20-million surplus in that they lapsed $20 million that year that they failed to tell people about, and that suggested that there was an operating surplus and that there was considerable funding available.

What we're projecting in the supplementary estimates that have been tabled today, for March 31, 1998, an accumulated $23-million surplus minus whatever is available to be spent on public sector wages for the balance of the employees other than teachers.

So the financial situation is considerably different.

Mr. Ostashek: What the Government Leader has just said right there is that with the $23 million projected in lapses, he will again have a $40 million surplus. That's what he's told us today.

Mr. Speaker, in negotiations with the teachers, one of the government negotiators - whom, I understand, is the sister of the Government Leader - was quoted as saying, "It doesn't matter what political stripe the party is, we, the Public Service Commission, run the government".

Can the Government Leader tell us if he agrees with that statement, and can he really tell Yukoners who is actually running this government?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: There are low blows, and there are low blows and, Mr. Speaker, the member has just hit the bottom of the barrel.

In the first instance, I want to make the technical point, because it's probably most important, that the accumulated surplus that we're projecting for this fiscal year end is $23 million minus whatever's available for the settlement, in terms of the public sector wages. We're not running a $23 million annual surplus. We have an accumulated bank account, a savings account, total of $23 million minus that which is necessary for the public sector wages.

With respect to who runs the government, the Cabinet of this territorial government runs the government. The executive runs the government, in consultation with literally thousands of Yukoners every day in every walk of life. I'm not going to comment on what someone is reported to have said. I can't believe that that's what was said, in any case, but whether or not the person who said it is my sister, or a relative of mine, is completely irrelevant.

Mr. Ostashek: When it comes to low blows, the members opposite really know what low blows are. They practised lots of them when they were in opposition - very serious low blows, too, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't make the statement. It's in this newsletter, and I'm going to table it here. I'm just reporting what was said in the newsletter, Mr. Speaker.

Further to that, the Minister of the Public Service Commission is now on the public record in an article in the Yukon News, on November 7th, as saying that restoring the wage rollback never was in the cards, despite the fact that, in opposition, the NDP stated that the two percent wasn't needed. It wasn't needed then; tax increases weren't needed, yet they're not prepared to give any of it back to the Yukon public. It was just good politics for them at the time, Mr. Speaker.

So I'd like to know from the Government Leader, did he instruct the Yukon negotiators that two percent was not in the cards, or did the negotiators tell him that that's what they were going to offer, in view of their opinion that they're running the government, and not the Government Leader?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, I think that, in terms of low blows, the lowest blow of all time had to be the Hughes Inquiry. It was not only a blow to the individuals involved when the government misused its power to attack not only members of the Legislature, but also citizens who were ultimately and completely exonerated - and spent $80,000 doing so - in order to try to bolster their unsuccessful attempts at re-election.

The issues that were raised around that time - and even before that time - with respect to the Government Leader of the time's own conflict of interest have never been addressed by the member opposite. They have never been answered by the member opposite. We're still waiting for the member to come clean.

With respect to the two percent, Mr. Speaker, as the public accounts will suggest and tell us, both a couple of years ago and this last year this money has been spent. There are not the available funds to go back in time and resurrect that or turn the clock back in time.

I might add that the NDP - and the Liberals for that matter - never promised to do any such thing in the election campaign - to return the funding. What the NDP did do was promise to return to the collective bargaining table, which they did do. On top of that, they put some money on the table to ensure that there were opportunities - willingly given by the government. They didn't have to be extracted by an arbitrator. They were willingly offered by the government to bolster employees' wage packages right across this territory.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 68, standing in the name of Mr. Ostashek.

Motion No. 68

Speaker: It is moved by the leader of the official opposition

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the federal Liberal Government proposal to restructure the old age benefits has flaws and raises serious issues of fairness in that the proposed Seniors Benefit would penalize middle to higher income Canadians who are saving for retirement while at the same time reduce their future retirement benefits; and

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal Government to hold public hearings in the Yukon prior to any changes being introduced to Canada's Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the age credit and the pension income credit.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and an honour to be able to introduce this motion into this Legislature because this is a very important motion to get on the public record how we, as legislators, feel about this new initiative of the federal Liberal government in Ottawa. I hope, political partisanship aside, that all members in this House will support this motion, because it is in the interests of not only the seniors that we have today but in our own interests and in the interests of our children and in the interests of our grandchildren.

The motion is not a controversial motion in my estimation. All we're asking for is for the federal government to do further consultation - in fact, Mr. Speaker, I could put it in a different light: that they do some consultation. We do not believe they have done any consultation so far on the seniors benefits package - and that the Liberal government hold public hearings in the Yukon. And we say "in the Yukon," Mr. Speaker, because this Legislature is only concerned with the Yukon. That doesn't mean that we don't think the federal Liberal government should hold consultations across Canada, but our concern in this Legislature is for our citizens in the Yukon.

One of the things that Canadians have prided themselves on for many, many years, and one of the things that we like to tell the rest of the world, is that we're a kinder and gentler society because of the universality of our social programs. And, Mr. Speaker, today more than ever, that universality is in great jeopardy. This is only another attack on universality where we can look at what's been happening in health and, as far as the seniors benefits package goes, let's not put all of the blame on this present Liberal government, although they must bear the biggest portion of it.

The universality of old age pensions started to get clawed back in 1989 with a decision by the Conservative government. That, in itself, was bad enough without moving to the next stage of where the federal government now wants to claw it back to where middle-income and higher income Canadians will receive absolutely no benefit. Now, if we remove middle-income Canadians, which is the majority of our population and, while the program admittedly will give a small measure of assistance to low-income Canadians, the fact is, going back to my opening statement, we are losing the universality of this program.

Those are the things that Canadians have paid into for years and years and years and look forward to, and the things that they thought they could count on in their retirement.

I can go back a few years to when the Liberal government came to power - this federal Liberal government came to power in Ottawa - faced with a huge deficit and a huge debt, which they haven't really addressed yet, but promise us they are going to.

They were looking at every avenue they could to raise money. They brought in, in their first budget, a two cent a litre increase in fuel taxes for Canadians, plus many, many others. I think 29 is the count going into the last election - 29 different tax increases in the first mandate of their government, which was only three and a half years. So, they have contributed dearly to the tax load that Canadians are carrying.

So, they are not without blame; they're not without fault. This, I see, is the biggest tax grab of all: the claw-back on this new seniors benefit package that is to come into effect in the year 2001.

This proposed seniors benefit, in simple terms, will mean a lower standard of living for seniors in Canada; in simple terms, that's what it will mean. It will be especially hard and it will impose a severe burden on those who have saved for their own retirement through RRSPs. Now, that's according to a study put out by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

There is no doubt that when the federal Liberal seniors benefits proposal was first announced in the federal budget in March 1996, at first glance, the plan looked pretty darned good. It was pretty straightforward back then. I believe it would be safe to say that it was accepted then by most Canadians as a progressive step forward, but since then Canadians have had time to review the proposal and what we have been able to make out so far is that it is a steep reduction in benefits and a net reduction in our savings.

One only needs to review the budget booklet, and you quickly realize that things are not near as rosy as the federal Liberals would like us to believe, and because of the fact that the average Canadian's not a financial planner, or an investor, for the greatest part, the task of trying to decipher what is in the plan actually becomes completely overwhelming.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons says that this thing is so confusing that even experts can't agree on how it'll affect seniors' lives. That is not something that we want to see progress unchallenged. For this reason, I believe it's our responsibility, as members of this Legislature, to raise the awareness of this program so that Yukoners are fully aware of what's coming at them in the future.

In a poll released by the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, 51 percent of Canadians said they intended to make RRSP contributions this year. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that's an estimated $6.5 billion this year alone. This suggests to me that Canadians feel that private savings are crucial for anyone who wishes to have a comfortable retirement.

One problem, however, it would appear, is that the federal government is doing everything in its power to discourage private savings. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, attending a Finance ministers meeting, going into the second budget that the federal Liberals were bringing in. It was a budget briefing for Finance ministers across this country. One of the options that was put forward to us at that time was taxing RRSP contributions. That was one of the things that the federal people wanted to do. Needless to say, there wasn't any support for it around the table, regardless of the philosophical belief of the provincial or territorial government.

They are now going to bring in new caps on contributions, thus reducing the amount Canadians can set aside for their retirement and, at the same time, having more of their income that they can tax.

That's the other side of the coin, and it's interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the income tax was brought in during World War I to help to pay for that war and was supposed to disappear after the war. How greedy governments have gotten over the years.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: And we hear the kibitzing from the back benches asking why did we raise the taxes? Well, we did, because it was the sorry shape the NDP government had left the territory in in 1992. That's why we raised taxes, and now we give them a surplus of money and they don't know what to do with it except to spend it on themselves instead of putting Yukoners to work.

Mr. Speaker, back to the debate, which is more important than kibitzing. The new CPP premiums that the federal Liberals are going to pass in the House - and in fact they limited second reading debate; the Liberal government that says all Canadians should have a say; a Liberal government that doesn't believe in ramming anything down the throats of Canadians closed debate on it. They brought in closure many times in their three and a half years in power. Nevertheless, the new CPP premiums will require workers to pay almost 70 percent more in contributions, which again will reduce the amount one can save for retirement. And at the same time that we're paying out that increased 70 percent in contributions, there's going to be less benefits coming out of the Canada Pension Plan in the future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the Government Leader I was involved in the meetings leading up to the legislation for in the increase in Canada pension benefits and I, like my colleagues across this country, agreed with the nine-percent increase. We felt it was required. But the other side of the coin was that we urged the federal Finance minister to lower UIC premiums to offset the increased Canada pension premiums so they wouldn't have a negative effect on payroll taxes in this country. They didn't do that. They marginally reduced UIC, not nearly enough to make up what the cost is going to be to businesses and workers on increased CPP premiums.

The new proposed seniors benefits program that will replace the existing old age benefit and guaranteed income supplement programs in the year 2001 is most distressing of all of the changes that are being proposed to the retirement package for Canadians and the universality of that program in Canada.

If approved, it will present the most fundamental changes to Canada's retirement income system since the CPP was introduced in 1966.

While I, for one, believe that reforms are needed - I would be the last one to say they're not - this proposal before Canadians today is not the way to go.

The seniors benefit is a means to keep Canada's pension system from collapsing under the weight of future seniors, namely the baby-boomers, who are now turning 50. It is estimated that there are close to nine million baby-boomers, and it is expected that the number of retired people over 65 will more than double, starting in the year 2011.

The old age security and guaranteed income supplement that Canadian seniors receive today constitute about one-fifth of all the federal program spending, or roughly $22 billion this year, as is my understanding. There's no doubt that with the number of retired people expected to climb over the next years, this dollar figure has nowhere to go but up.

To ensure that Canada's pension system continues, the Liberals in Ottawa have come up with this new benefit package, but no one seems to be in agreement as to how it will work. There are many, many publications, some of which I will quote from today and I will give you some figures from other publications. There is a wide variety of opinions.

How will it work? The benefit would pay a maximum benefit of $11,420 per individual, or $18,440 per couple. It is my understanding that it would be tax free for seniors with no other income. A little over $18,000 per couple or a little over $11,000 for a single person is not much to expect a senior Canadian who has contributed to the economy of our country and to our well-being for many, many years to live on in a respectable retirement.

They need to have some other sources of income, and that's where this gets real difficult and very hard to accept. As I said, while there's no doubt the poorest recipients would be paid an amount equal to that available under the existing system and about an extra $120 a year, and they claim that in the year 2001 75 percent of all seniors would be the same or better off, I question that, personally, but that's what they're trying to tell us.

And maybe they will, but that's before the federal government gets their claws in there and starts clawing it back, because that's when things fall apart quite quickly.

Under the proposed benefit, a 20-percent claw-back on top of personal income taxes would apply to each dollar of household income over $25,921, which, Mr. Speaker, would increase the overall tax rate from 45 percent to more than 75 percent.

Now, is this the way we're going to treat our seniors?

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker: a single senior from Ontario with an income from savings and pensions of $28,000 a year. While that income would put them in the 27-percent tax bracket, an additional $1,000 in income would be taxed back at 47 percent, including the claw-back. That's plus the taxes and the claw-back on the senior benefits. Mr. Speaker, there were a few examples in one of the publications that we looked at - Canadian Business Magazine, the recent edition - which gives that very example: a senior with an annual retirement income of $28,000. The net portion again of that extra $1,000 that they receive, the net portion, would be $530. That's all the senior would get out of that $1,000, a

nd if the single senior was making $40,000 a year, he or she would only get $382 out of that extra $1,000, and a senior couple earning $74,000 would only benefit $273 from that extra $1,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be people, maybe even some of my colleagues in this Legislature, that would say a couple who are earning $74,000 don't need seniors benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and I say to this Legislature, if we're going down that road, then we're going down a road to end universality of all social programs in Canada. Those people paid into that pension plan, just like every other Canadian in this country did, and they are entitled to the same benefits as each and every other Canadian is.

It is totally unacceptable to my party and myself to have one paying almost 50 cents back on every extra dollar saved. That, Mr. Speaker, is no initiative to save for retirement.

Contrary to the government's opinion that Canadians would be better off with a new program, millions of middle-income Canadians will eventually be worse off. With tax rates as high as 70 percent, individuals stand to lose the full amount of that benefit when their annual income exceeds $52,000 - $52,000 and you're not going to get any benefit of that seniors benefit package.

Ottawa is not only making it harder for Canadians to prepare for their retirement, it is also now proposing that the retirement income will be taxed to the point of no return. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes, it will cause massive changes to the way people structure their lives. If this seniors benefit is introduced as proposed, Canadians will have no incentive to save for retirement, and should the majority of people cease to save, there would be a major negative impact on investment and growth in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that started us down the road to saving to supplement our retirements. They said we ought not to depend fully on the old age pension that they were handing out to people. They started us down the road. Now they see that huge pool of capital there that they can't get their hands on and they're trying everything within their power to find a way of taxing that huge pool of capital in their never-ending quest for monies.

The seniors benefit also discriminates against married people, and this from a government that doesn't believe in discrimination. Two seniors living together unmarried could collect 20 percent more in government income than a couple. So much for marriage in this country, if we're going to reward people who don't enter into the sanctity of marriage.

A couple will receive no help once their annual income exceeds $78,000. By contrast, Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the 15-percent claw-back that's in effect now. That claw-back only begins to kick in when individual income exceeds $53,215. That's when that 15 percent kicks in.

Moreover, with the seniors benefits, even the portion that is clawed back is subject to income taxes. So, we're being hit on both sides with that one.

So, what we're saying here is that, under the federal government one, they're going to take the biggest portion of what you make when your and your wife's income exceeds $78,000. Yet, they're saying that two couples living together can make a lot more money and not be taxed. I don't believe that's fair, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe it's fair at all.

Ironically, French Canadians won't be affected by this change at all because their incomes will be too high to qualify for seniors benefits anyhow. It's going to be the middle-income Canadians who are going to feel the hit. They're the ones that are going to pay the tax bill.

Compared with the current system, the seniors benefit will provide a modest increase for seniors with below-average incomes, but only a very modest increase. Those with middle average incomes will stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in income.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail on September 8, 1997, on this whole seniors benefit package.

What this article says is that under the current system a single senior with an annual income of $10,000 would receive an additional $5,840 in after-tax benefits from the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That's under the system we have now.

Under the new system, the senior would receive $6,420 - some $600 more. A more well-off senior, with an income of $52,000, would receive $2,664 in post-tax benefits under the old system. Under the new system, the senior would get nothing.

So, under the old system, where he got $2,660, under the new system, he gets absolutely nothing. So much for universality.

A couple with an income of $8,000 would receive $14,320 in after-tax benefits under the current system and just slightly more under the new system. They receive $14,440 - $120 more. But a couple with an income of $70,000, who would have received $4,830 in after-tax benefits under the old system, will receive only $1,510 in seniors benefits. So, we can see that there is no fairness in this system at all. It's going to hit - again - the people who are always hit the hardest by taxes: middle-income Canadians.

As I said, it won't have any impact on rich Canadians, because they won't qualify for the program, and poorer Canadians will only get a meagre increase in benefits.

As the article said - and we believe, which I said already, but I will reinforce it again - the bottom line is that the proposed seniors benefit program is nothing but a tax grab by federal Liberals in Ottawa. It will affect all of us and all of our families. Make no mistake about it.

The wisdom of saving for a rainy day to offset expenses for special care or needs in our advanced years or to protect a spouse, who would receive a reduced pension on the death of their spouse, simply will not make much sense if this new seniors benefit package goes through. It will not encourage people to save. In fact, I believe that it will discourage them from saving.

Maybe that's what the federal government wants. Discourage them from putting it into RRSPs and there's more money for them to tax. Maybe that's what they want. Maybe that's the method in their madness.

Without doubt, the proposed seniors benefit is one of the least well-understood programs in Canada. It would appear that the Finance minister is lacking in an understanding of the program as well and the magnitude of what he is doing or what he is about to bring in. For this very reason, we must make every effort to let Yukoners know what we expect from this program, and that's every reason for the motion that's here today - for those bureaucrats and those politicians to get out of Ottawa and come up here and explain to the average Yukoner what, in fact, they're trying to do with the pensions in the future.

It has been said that for people who are a year or two from drawing pension this is not going to have any effect on them. It has been said that the younger generation thinks it's great that the federal government is getting a handle on it now, lightening up the debt load and ensuring that they have a pension when they get to the age of 65, but, Mr. Speaker, what about that vast multitude of Canadians who are between the ages of 50 and 60 who don't have time to prepare, don't have time to adjust, to make the changes, so that they can retire and live a respectable retirement without being a burden on society? What happens to them, Mr. Speaker? What consideration has been given to them?

To date, there have been no formal consultations held with the public at large. However, Mr. Martin has had a series of private meetings with influential seniors groups over the summer. Focus group sessions in four Canadian cities have also been held to see how Canadians react to the changes. But, Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been a whole lot of consultation on it.

I have an article here in the Yukon seniors magazine that I believe was done by Doug Bell who is one of our seniors, and he says, "Benefits such as a positive title, they have planned seniors benefits, strategies without input from the likes of seniors, without input from economists, RRSP managers, financial analysts, and so forth. The only input they've had is from themselves, the federal Liberals in Ottawa and the bureaucrats who, after all, know what's best for all Canadians."

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bell goes on to say in his article here that the financial wizard, Gordon Pape, is the latest to join the chorus, and apparently he talked about it on his CBC program and promises more in the future. According to him, if your income after retirement is between $29,000 and $56,000, you will be taxed at a 56.8 percent tax rate going up to a maximum tax rate of 76 percent. Well, if that isn't a tax grab, I don't know what is, and this is on joint household income, not just individuals as it is today.

Mr. Bell goes on to get very irate with the federal Liberals about their proposals, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Polling done by the Liberals has also taken place, and what was derived from this, as I said earlier, was that those who are turning 65 aren't too concerned, and those who are under 50 are generally pleased with the reforms, but those from 50 to 60 are very, very concerned with what's going to happen.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians have much to fear with the changes, much more to fear than what they should be happy about, and I also believe that it's incumbent upon the federal government to make them fully aware of the program, what it is offering and what it is not offering, to have this fully debated. I don't see any panic to have it pushed through by the end of the year, except to grab more taxes and, rather than selling the program as long-term pension reform, this initiative seems to be more of a deficit-reduction exercise, and I urge all members to support this motion.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'd like to follow up on some of the comments that the leader of the official opposition has made with regard to the proposed seniors benefit.

I should say that initially I started off calling it the "seniors don't benefit," but I thought that might be a bit cheeky. Far be it for me to do anything of that nature.

In the federal Liberal government's infamous red book, they talk about, "a framework of fundamental fairness and decency in social policy." They speak of their legacy of programs, including the guaranteed income supplement and Canada Pension Plan. Now, I think it's a bit of an irony that they now plan to gut these plans at the expense of the middle class.

I guess, how times have changed from the time of the red book to now. The Liberal government has done almost a complete about face and has headed toward trampling some of our more sacred universal programs.

By the way, son of red book appeared in, interestingly enough, the business section of the Globe and Mail. Taking a look at son of red book, it's considerably thinner than the original one, you'll notice, Mr. Speaker. It is red, yes, we can agree that it is red and it's got a snappy picture of the Prime Minister. However, you know, in reading through, surprisingly the Canada Pension Plan is exempt. They talk about some other things. Oh, good heavens, did you notice that the child care spaces are also exempt from this one?

Anyhow, one can shell out a few bucks for the Liberal Party here because they've occupied a very nice spot here where you can check off 30, 50 and then "other". I guess that's for people like Conrad Black and Matthew Barrett, when they're cruising through the business section of the Globe and Mail, but I digress.

I suppose health care used to be a universal program. I can attest to the fact now that with the downloading of the federal Liberal government to the provinces and territories - incidentally, that is not my interpretation alone; I've had a number of conversations with my colleagues across the country who share that view - and with the acceptance of payments to private specialists clinics, this program is losing its universal quality. So, I can basically take the tack that those who have money can get services and those who don't, can't. Well, I think the changes to the seniors benefits are just another example of how this Liberal government is driving away from the whole idea of universality.

What's important about universality? Well, first of all, I think it's a safety net for everyone. It's to protect us in times of trouble, all of us from every economic class, from every race and culture. It's part of what makes this country the best place in the world to live.

Programs are targeted at the poor, who seem to be the most vulnerable to cuts and I think we only have to look as far as Ontario, for example, where social assistance appears to be the primary source of funds these days and it's not going to those in need.

Yesterday was interesting, because on Remembrance Day I watched as elderly mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters of veterans of the First and Second World Wars spoke of how we have to care for our seniors in a compassionate manner. Those individuals made sacrifices, of course, and we have to respect and care for them.

We, as the Member for Riverdale South is so fond of reminding us, are aging. We are becoming a population of seniors. So I think we all have to prepare for our own retirement. This is even clearer with the federal Liberal proposal for the seniors benefit.

The plan is basically to abolish the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement and replace them with a new program. Currently, all of us at age 65 are entitled to the old age security, minus the claw-back from the previous Mulroney Conservatives for those with higher incomes. Seniors with incomes below the poverty line also get the guaranteed income supplement.

The maximum old age security is now about $4,760 per year. The amount of the seniors benefit will replace both the OAS and GIS. It will, quote, "be determined on the basis of the combined income of spouses, based on the previous year's income tax returns." This is another way of means testing. It is a means testing the care we give our elders and is both demeaning and discriminatory. In particular, it hurts women who have had, on average, smaller incomes than their partners and, therefore, it would be an issue to more the OAS and GIS income if the income were not combined income of spouses.

The whole question of aging women and poverty is already a problem in Canada that will be, quite frankly, exacerbated by this Procrustean move. So much for universality and the sacred trust, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Procrustean? I'm sorry, I should elaborate on this perhaps, Mr. Speaker. Procrustes was a famous robber who lived on the road to Attica. He had a peculiar habit. When travellers would go by, he would strap them to an iron bed. Those who didn't fit the iron bed, he would chop off their feet to make them fit. Those who were too short, he would stretch to make them fit. When we talk about Procrustean measures, we are referring to radical and drastic measures designed to induce conformity.

Sorry for that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, thank you.

So much for the concept of universality and sacred trust, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government, in this case, wants to fit every one of us, even our most vulnerable, into the same size bed. The federal Liberal government has clawed back pensions for single persons starting at $53,215. Under the new Draconian system of seniors benefits, Mr. Speaker - are people familiar with Draconian? Good - the claw-back will begin at $25,921 for all seniors, and the claw-back rate, which was 15 cents on each dollar, will be increased to 20 percent.

Singles with an income of $51,721 will not get the seniors benefits, and couples with an income over $77,000 will also be excluded, so say good-bye to universality, Mr. Speaker. Just one more example of the Liberal government abandoning its promises and so-called principles. It's an attack, essentially, on middle-class Canadians, Mr. Speaker, an act by the Liberals in Ottawa to, I think, divide a nation at a time we most need it. Even more disgracefully, trying to divide us along the lines of class.

All seniors, beginning in the year 2001, will lose two income tax credits, which currently help reduce their taxable income - the Old Age credit, valued at $3,482, and a pension credit of $1,000. Those two credits can now reduce a senior's income tax by $991 a year. So, in a sense, seniors will face a very substantial increase in taxation. In fact, seniors will pay a higher tax rate in retirement than while working. So, haven't they done enough already? Is there no sacrifice too great for the Liberal government in Ottawa to demand of them? That was a rhetorical question. I tell you.

This is another attempt by the federal Liberal government in Ottawa to gut the pension plan we've all paid into for most of our working lives, and upon which many Canadians depend. The federal Liberal government is dismantling our most cherished and respected universal programs. I suspect this isn't the end of the cuts. No, Mr. Speaker, if we all subscribe to Jean's psychic hot line here, we'll get a little clairvoyance here, because I can see the cuts by the Liberal government going on and on and on, until the concept of universal programs is merely just a faint glow, something that some of us older folk remember.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The member will be on his porch, and he'll be telling his great, great grandchildren about how he remembers when there were universal programs in this country before the Liberal government.

We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this is the thin edge of the wedge. What's next? Medicare, unemployment insurance - and I will not dignify the recent changes by calling it "employment insurance" - and the Canada Pension Plan?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would find myself quoting Dalton Camp, but as he appears to be the only Conservative left in the country that can actually put the word "progressive" in front of the word "conservative," I think I'll take a stab at it. On April 15, 1997, Mr. Camp was welcoming his friend Allan Fotheringham to retirement age by saying, "Having reached 65 he would now be, as a senior citizen, the prey of the Minister of Finance, the dreaded Paul Martin and his many minions who are working overtime to screw every Canadian 65 and over, except the obscenely rich, and hasten them to an early demise." I couldn't agree more, and I'm astonished that I'm saying that I could agree that much with Dalton Camp, but this is the exact intent of the federal government: to basically starve our elders out.

There seem to be some short memories in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. They've forgotten the elders who made their way en masse to Ottawa when Mulroney tried his pension trick before. The country was up in arms, and I truly suspect that it will be again. I think it reminds me that with the Tory-Liberal government in Ottawa, we get the same treatment - basically the same disrespect and disregard.

I'd just like to talk a little bit more about the whole question of pension plans and the CPP. It seems to me that after working for years for a living and contributing to a pension plan, Canadians should be able to enjoy retirement. They should not have to go into their senior years burdened with financial cares. We've been promised a strong pension plan, and I think it's essential that we have one.

Now, RRSPs and private pension plans are available for many Canadians, but they only serve a smaller percentage of the population, and those individuals who, during their working career, have had advantages of having good jobs, good incomes and, in some cases, good opportunities to invest. As these jobs and incomes and opportunities become more and more scarce, there is a need for secure public pension increases. Those who are unable to find well-paying, full-time jobs will bear the brunt of the changes to the CPP, and those changes will impact mostly women and young people.

Poverty hits at certain groups in society particularly hard. Elders and seniors, particularly older women, are vulnerable. It's our responsibility as a society to provide for our elders, and public pensions begin to do that. Twenty percent of all Canadian seniors live below the poverty line, as do half of those who live alone, most of whom, Mr. Speaker, regrettably are women.

The CPP worked together with the old age security and guaranteed income supplement, the tax system and RRSPs to provide us with a level of comfort and dignity in our older years, our senior years.

I'm proud to say that this party, the New Democratic Party, has played a role in the establishment of public pensions in this country. It was people like J. S. Woodsworth and other members of the CCF who sparked the formation of the universal pension plan for all Canadians. Now it appears that the Liberal government wants to establish the universal old age security and replace it with an income-tested program.

Companies and individuals prepared their pension plans with an understanding that the OAS would be there, and now the Liberals are unfairly removing it, and that punishes those who made their financial plans in good faith.

Reducing OAS benefits will create more poverty amongst seniors, particularly women, and make it more difficult for middle-income Canadians to maintain their standard of living in retirement. Using a couple's joint income to determine eligibility means that many women will never be able to receive their pension because their husband's income is simply too high. This is basically a step back for women's equality and economy.

The pension plan proposals are a gift of guess who, Mr. Speaker? I don't think it'll come as a surprise that the proposals will not benefit the elders of the community, not men and women in their senior years, not even younger people who are preparing for their retirement. No, the Conservative proposals that are being proposed here would benefit big business. They would put private sector managers in charge of the CPP. They would propose to remove the limits on foreign investments and RRSPs, resulting in the disinvestment of millions of dollars in the Canadian economy.

The Reform Party wants to destroy Canada's commitment to the seniors. They propose to eliminate the CPP entirely and replace it with RRSPs only. Well, Mr. Speaker, they would only give additional tax breaks to the wealthy. And isn't that an irony? Reform would give further tax breaks to those who already have little to worry about in retirement.

Reform would leave other folks to fend for themselves. The Reform idea would mean that Canadians would have to cover the benefits for today's seniors and pay into individual RRSPs to prepare their own retirement. Pay more and get less, that's the headline on the CPP these days. The Liberal government wants to cut CPP by 10 percent. They'll do that by tightening eligibility requirements on disabled people. They'll do that by allowing the basic yearly exemption to remain at $3,500, instead of indexing that amount for inflation. The result is a person who makes $35,000 will pay as much CPP as someone who makes $100,000. This is adding a huge burden to our middle class in Canada.

Pension monies will be invested in a diversified portfolio of securities, and I have some concerns with this. While I agree that there needs to be greater diversification, I think that we have to have some security in there, because we have seen very recently how global markets can impact tremendously on and individual's investments and an individual's savings.

The Liberal plan is to create a board run by bankers, bond dealers and private pension fund managers. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they're the kind that would fill in the "other" part here under "Contributions". I guess they would be.

So, the same folks that would peruse this in the back of the Globe and Mail would probably be the kind of people that would be sitting on this board. They will reap huge profits without being responsible for any losses.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, average working Canadians will pay higher premiums - more than 70-percent higher over the next six years. This will result in a huge surplus in the pension fund and place an unnecessary tax burden on working middle-class Canadians.

We need to fight for a fair, long-term plan for a stronger CPP. We need to continue to fight for humane disability and survivor benefits. We need to fight the higher premium increases imposed on the poorest workers of this country, many of whom live below the poverty line. We have to urge the federal government to invest CPP to improve returns and promote economic development in Canada, but ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that these kinds of motions, these kinds of actions by the federal Liberal government, will not diminish and destroy a pension plan that all of us have worked for during our working lives, and on which so many Canadians depend.

This is one of those cherished and respected universal programs that defines us as a people. It defines us as to who we are. There are times when this country seems seriously adrift, but the commonalities - the common concerns of one Canadian for another Canadian - are the kinds of things that are the substantive marrow of this country. For the Liberals to attack these universal programs is, I think, a crime. I would just like to urge all members of this House to oppose such moves.

Thank you.

Mrs. Edelman: Five years from now, in the year 2001, Canada will bring in a new program called the seniors benefit. This benefit is a combination of old age security, or, OAS and guaranteed income supplement, or GIS. This pension reform is ostensibly to cut the costs of government pension systems and thus ensure the viability of a government pension system for all Canadians once the baby-boomers start to retire. It is important to understand the system the way it stands now in order to realize the full impact of these changes and the effect that they will have on our future.

At present, all Canadian seniors, no matter what their income, receive old age security or OAS. OAS today amounts to $483.55 a month. In addition to this, Canadians receive an additional income-tested benefit called GIS. Today's rate for a single senior making below $11,000 is approximately $400 a month. A married senior who is making below $15,000 per year will bring home $314 per month. In addition to this, there is a seniors supplement for Yukoners that is anywhere from $10 to $100 per month, depending on a senior's income.

Many Canadian seniors also receive Canada Pension Plan benefits and receive income from investments or private pension plans. There are also two seniors income tax benefits. Under the new tax-free seniors benefit, which will come into effect in 2001, old age security and guaranteed income supplement will be combined into one income-tested benefit. In other words, there will no longer be a universal component of the government's senior pension. The two income tax benefits will disappear.

Anyone over 60 by December 31, 1995, and their spouses get a lifetime guarantee. They will have the choice of keeping their old age security or GIS payments, as currently structured, or receive the new pension benefit. The new seniors benefit will be indexed to inflation and will be completely tax free.

The cheque will come monthly and separate cheques, each of the same amount, will be delivered to each spouse in a marriage. The size of the benefit will vary according to family income. Benefits will be chipped away for many seniors with incomes of more than $40,000 per year. Single seniors with incomes of more than $52,000 and couples with incomes above $78,000 will get no benefit at all.

This is a much harsher claw-back than the existing system, in which a single senior with an income of $52,000 or less is entitled to a full old age security benefit, and a married couple with an income of $100,000 per year can also get full benefits.

Poor seniors will receive $120 more a year in benefits than they get now under the new program and that's probably a good thing, but about 25 percent of seniors will receive lower benefits. By the year 2030, the system will cost $69.1 billion compared to $77.3 billion, if the current system remains in place.

From a purely socialist point of view, the changes will benefit the poor and take from the rich. So, that's probably good from that point of view, but for those of us who are baby-boomers, the cost-cutting measures of eliminating the two bureaucracies around GIS and OAS and combining them into one is probably good, for this will help to ensure that there is some sort of government pension available for low-income seniors when we, the baby-boomers, start to retire.

What we all must remember is that, although the federal government has virtually eliminated the deficit, our country carries a significant debt load and that is the mortgage on our children's future, their quality of life, our retirement and theirs.

Where there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty around this pension reform is how the changes to government pensions affect women. The federal government claims that 75 percent of singles and couples will receive the same or higher benefits, and that nine out of 10 single women will be better off. Other groups claim that women in particular will be losers under the seniors benefit.

The government now claims to be promoting women's independence by providing all seniors, male and female, with their own pension cheques, but when the old age security and guaranteed income supplement are replaced by the seniors benefit, which is geared to total spousal income, many women who now qualify for separate cheques will have their pension payments clawed back because of the size of their spouse's income. This will have a maximum effect on women who are middle or high income.

Probably the greatest equalizer of all this proposed pension reform will be the loss of the pension income and age tax credit. The federal government is saying that the change to the seniors benefit will benefit the majority of seniors, and this is because 75 percent of seniors today have a lower to low-middle income and 25 percent of seniors today, therefore, would be high or middle income.

What the change in the seniors benefit does is transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. The 75/25 split is only indicative of seniors demographics today. It is extremely unlikely that when we, the boomers, start to retire that split will be dramatically different. At the very least, there will be a much higher number of truly middle-class seniors, partly due to the fact that women have earned more dollars in their lives than the women of 40 years ago who rarely even entered the workforce.

Now, with the loss of the age credit and the pension income credit, middle-class seniors today will lose whatever financial benefit they may have garnered from the changeover from OAS and GIS to the universal seniors benefit.

While most Canadians agree that the notion of saving money where you can and making sure that those of us who need help the most are targeted, it is extremely unlikely that most Canadians would be pleased with this type of financial wizardry where the government gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

A dose of reality here is that most of us who are baby-boomers have been told for years by the government and by the investment community that we cannot depend upon the government to support us in our old age. Even the Canada Pension Plan is not secure, we have been told, despite the fact that we have paid into it for many years. We do not pay into old age security. For that very reason, most of us with decent incomes have been squirreling away retirement savings at pretty regular intervals.

Unfortunately, that very forethought could work against us when the new seniors benefit comes into force in the year 2001 and those savings are counted as our potential government pension. People five to 10 years away from 65 will now have to plan their retirement income strategy differently.

Does it now make sense to contribute to an RRSP, for example, if you will, in effect, be taxed at the rate of 60 percent when you draw the money back out? There are a lot of difficult issues to consider when planning retirement now, and I don't think we have enough information to make informed, logical and sustainable choices about this next life change.

Here in the Yukon we also have to examine what this change means to us. How will the new seniors benefit affect the Yukon supplement? Should or could the Yukon supplement for seniors be increased? Should the Yukon supplement be discontinued? What about other Yukon senior benefits? Yukoners now enjoy probably some of the best seniors benefits in Canada. Can we sustain those benefits, and should we?

In speaking with the current president of the Yukon Council on Aging, Joyce Young, she informs me that the Yukon Council on Aging has not yet had an opportunity to formulate a position on the new seniors benefit. In addition to that, we in the territory have not yet pursued the point of view of the various women's groups on the latest pension reform. There also hasn't been any significant discussion with the private sector, unions, First Nations, or the general public, and we need to talk.

Federal legislation has to be understood by all of the Canadians it affects. In this case, pension reform affects all Canadians. We can all remember the tremendously successful implementation of the GST. I dare you to have found one group of Canadians that supported that legislation outside of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. Hopefully we can do better than that.

This member of the House certainly supports the motion and sees the necessity of public hearings on old age security and guaranteed income supplement changes, as well as the elimination of the age credit and the pension income credit. Pension reform affects us all. It behoves the federal government to hold hearings. I will be one of the strongest voices lobbying the federal government to hold at least one of those public hearings on pension reform here in the Yukon.

But I suppose that the motion that we're discussing today has certain limitations. It talks about changes to people who are going to be retiring and who have a middle or a higher income, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there, not only from people in that particular income group but also from those who are in the lower income groups, for example, some of the misconceptions we've heard today. Now, Mr. Ostashek and Mr. Sloan think that we pay into OAS, and in fact we pay into Canadian Pension Plan. Now, the Conservatives made old age security taxable in 1989, and that directly affected a lot of low-income Canadians. The poor have been paying tax on the guaranteed income supplement for the last 50 years to the tune of 50 percent.

The new seniors benefit is tax free, and that's actually a much better point of view for the people on low income.

Amendment proposed

Mrs. Edelman: Therefore, I'd like to make an amendment to the motion, and that motion is:

THAT Motion No. 68 be amended by deleting the words

"middle to higher income".

Speaker: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South

THAT Motion No. 68 be amended by deleting the words "middle to higher income".

Mrs. Edelman: I can't see that there will be a problem with this particular amendment in the House. If there's no other change, at least low-income seniors will have almost no incentive to earn extra income, as the claw-back will reduce each dollar earned by 50 percent. Under the previous motion, we only discussed how pension reform will affect those with higher or middle income, and I think that it makes sense for us to talk about that.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, at the risk of perhaps exhausting the patience of my friends across the floor, who I know wait with great anticipation for some of my brief missives here, remembering that brevity is the soul of wit, I won't speak too much to this, because I think that while it does address some of the issues of middle and higher income I think there's a more fundamental problem, and that is how this is being handled, not only in the federal Parliament by the sort of truncated debate that has gone on, but as well the whole question of the universality I don't think has been adequately addressed by the removal of these comments "middle to higher income".

I think what I would do would be just to point out that this still doesn't address the attempt by the federal government to deal with some of their budgetary goals on the backs of those people who have the least resources in this country. So, I would say that, with all due respect, I find this doesn't substantively change the motion. Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: On the amendment, while the amendment may seem like a friendly amendment, I have a little bit of concern with it. Maybe the member, in her wrap-up, can tell me again why she feels it's necessary.

The reason that we put the clause in there - middle to higher income Canadians - is because those are the people who spend their money on RRSPs. Low-income Canadians don't have as much money in RRSPs, if they can even afford to buy RRSPs. The penalty to middle and higher class income earners in Canada is going to be enormous under this bill. That's what we were trying to point out - the inequities in the bill. If you're not making money, you're not going to be taxed on it. If you're only living off the pension - the seniors benefit package that the federal government is giving you - you are in fact going to be a little better off than what you were under the old one. You're in fact going to be some $120, I think it is, if you're just on the line - I don't have my notes in front of me right now - but marginally better off than you are under the present system.

We were trying to point out very clearly to the federal government the tax impact this was going to have on middle-income Canadians especially, who pay the brunt of all taxes in this country as it is. We don't believe that this bill, implemented even as stated by the Liberal government, will have a negative impact on low-income Canadians, because when we look, the poorest recipients will be paid an amount equal to that available under the existing system and an extra $120 a year. That's if they just qualified for the seniors benefit package, didn't have any RRSPs to draw down and didn't have any other pension to draw down. They would, in fact, benefit under this, very meagrely, I say, but they certainly wouldn't be penalized. I have some difficulty with that. I'm not going to speak forever on the amendment, but I just want to know from the Member for Riverdale South, in her proposal for that amendment, why she feels it's necessary.

Mr. Cable: I'm sure the Member for Riverdale South will speak to the questions that were raised but my own thoughts are that the mover of the motion, I think, wants a public discussion. That's the main thrust of his motion, and we agree with that. We think this is a very serious program. It involves many, many, many Canadians and it has not been totally thought through and not been totally debated.

That's the main thrust of the motion and we're going to support it in that form, but we'd like to point out that there are those who say the system is not revenue neutral and, if it were revenue neutral, even the poor would stand to benefit to a greater extent, so we want a discussion on how it affects all Canadians, not just middle-class Canadians and not just higher income Canadians, and that's the reason that we have introduced the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, if that is the reason for tabling the amendment, I'm not sure whether it will accomplish what the Liberal member wants it to do, because the discussion we're talking about will only take place under the motion if the federal Liberal government decides to come here and have a discussion.

The concern I have is that, if the intent of the Liberal member is to make sure there's a discussion locally, maybe we should look at a further amendment to this motion, whereby we could not only agree with the changes that the member has made but, Mr. Speaker, we could possibly amend this motion so that the Yukon government would conduct an information campaign to let people know what's going on - or some consultations to let people know what's going on. Because I'm afraid that the federal Liberal government is going to pull its head in like a turtle on this one and proceed without consultation of anybody else, or possibly just hold hearings in Ottawa, and then this motion will be all for nought, other than sending it to them in Ottawa and saying, "We're not very happy with what you're doing.

What I would like to do is possibly bring in a further amendment to this amendment. I have no problem agreeing with this, but we'll quickly draft another amendment to this amendment, which will possibly see the Yukon government conduct information sessions or hearings on this particular issue so that all Yukoners are aware of what this is going to do and how it's going to affect them.

I think this is an extremely important issue for a lot of people out there. There is so much misinformation about it out there right now. When you talk to people about it, they say, "Oh no, it's not going to affect me. I kind of have a good idea of what's going to happen."

Well, I took the time to call the people who I have some money invested with and said, "How's it going to affect me?" and they don't know yet how it's going to affect me. They have concerns and, in fact, I'm trying to put together something now with my partner where we're going to look at where we stand financially when it comes to retirement and whether or not it's a good idea for us to buy any more RRSPs -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: Or, as the member says, get married.

That was a low blow, but I can tell the House, for their information, that I have proposed already prior to the tabling or before I had any idea of this legislation. It had nothing to do with the legislation; it had everything to do with my partner.

This is a very confusing piece of legislation to Canadians out there. It's one of those things that, when you turn 65 you're going to wake up and find that something happened back in 1997 that had a profound effect on your retirement.

So, my advice to a lot of people out there would be to find out what this is going to do. I think one of the ways we can do that, I suppose, is we can possibly not wait for the federal government to come here. Maybe we can put something in this motion that would - I'm not talking about a really expensive campaign, but certainly some kind of a campaign that the average Yukoner could understand - lay out what the plan is for this bill and how it would affect people by way of radio advertisements, by way of newspaper advertisements. It may even involve some public meetings in some communities to let people know what's going on.

I am really concerned that there's a real lack of knowledge on how this is going to affect us overall. I'm prepared as one, I suppose, to go out and spend a few dollars with a financial advisor and find out whether it's a good idea for me to buy any more RRSPs with this legislation or not.

Some people maybe can't do that. Some people are probably not even going to be aware that this is happening in Ottawa and they're just going to find out that their overall, long-range plans for retirement are going to be drastically affected by this piece of legislation. So I'll go to work now in putting together some kind of amendment to this, and hopefully when I stand up and speak to the main motion in a few minutes, we'll have an amendment that will urge the Government of Yukon, failing the federal government's plans to come here - the Yukon government will conduct some kind of an information campaign to at least let us know or inform us as Yukoners what effect this will have on retirement.

I know the Minister of Health and Social Services spoke just the other day to the doctors. I heard something the other day about many more Yukoners planning to retire here, and that's a change from years ago when people used to reach the age of 55 or 60 and then go to Kelowna or Parksville or the Okanagan or somewhere else and retire. Many of those people now are choosing the Yukon as a home and staying here and building on strengths of the family with grandparents and that kind of thing, and I think people want to see that happening, so it would be useful for the Government of Yukon, if the federal government fails to come up here - and they're not likely to, unfortunately; I hate to say that, but my fear is that there will be a list of the capital cities they may go to in Canada if they are going to, and the Yukon will be conveniently left off the capital city list of places they're going to come.

I can support the amendment the way it's written, but when I go back to what the Member for Riverside said about the purpose of this being to make Yukoners more aware of what this is going to do, I'm not sure this amendment does all that. I think that just the confusion in the House here between what the Member for Porter Creek North said about the motion - higher and middle income - and what the Member for Riverdale South said about the lower income points to the fact there is confusion about what this particular bill does, and who it affects, and who it affects more.

And so, I think it would be a useful exercise to come back with an amendment. I hope, as I'm speaking, there are people rushing around in the office drafting such an amendment, but I hope I can come back with an amendment before the debate is over to deal with the issue of what we do if the federal government doesn't decide to come to the north, so that we can inform the people of the Yukon how this might affect them and, if nothing else, they can write letters to their MP and other MPs to try and change the federal government's mind on this issue. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is a timely motion for us. The issue, as raised by the leader of the official opposition, is an important one for all of us to consider and I'd like to begin by thanking the member for putting the issue on the floor of the House. Certainly, he was probably first in a line of people who wanted to do such a thing, but no time like the present.

Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping we can clear up the confusion today because my remarks right now are more procedural in nature and less substantive, even though I do agree with the intent of the motion, and I don't necessarily think that the proposed amendment is a problem either. But we do feel that there is more to say in this motion and it does require further amendment, so consequently one member on the government's side will be making a proposal in a minute or two to improve the wording even further.

If there is a desire at some point to involve the Yukon government in an information campaign, I can say for the members that we would be happy to take that suggestion and that direction and provide information and help mobilize a public discussion around these important issues, along with the investment community that makes a living ensuring that people are well-prepared for their retirement years.

I don't have a lot to say to some of the other comments made by the Member for Riverdale North other than that he is much more experienced at getting married than I am, so I will defer to his wisdom. Whether he's a good, long-term risk, I think we might want to take testimonials from a number of people on that subject, but in financial terms he has made a good contribution so far to the debate and raises some issues that ought to be considered.

The problem that we generally have with the motion, Mr. Speaker, is not that it doesn't raise a good point, but that it is incomplete and doesn't send a complete enough message. We do believe that there ought to be continuing discussions, even though it is obvious that the federal government has already held information sessions around the country, including Whitehorse, on the subject of the Canada Pension Plan and any other issue that people feel is important when it comes to retirement income, and certainly a broad range of issues was raised in those hearings. It wasn't obviously restricted only to the Canada Pension Plan, but people did raise a lot of concern about the future viability of the pension plan and retirement income for a growing population of older people, a group of people, Mr. Speaker, that you and I and a number of other notables in this Legislature will soon be joining.

There is a need, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the motion is clear and complete and sends a complete message to the federal government, in the first instance, so we will be suggesting another amendment. We're drafting the amendment as I speak, Mr. Speaker, with a view to trying to accommodate the Member for Riverdale South's amendment, about which we have no serious concern.

So I'm looking forward to whatever comes out of this debate. I would really like to encourage the debate to be completed today, because it wouldn't be a good example of good efficient debating, when we're all agreed, to not be able to issue at least one statement today that can clearly enunciate how we feel about the subject.

Amendment agreed to

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the motion as amended?

Mr. Hardy: There's been a lot of bouncing back and forth at the moment with a very small amendment that was proposed by the Liberal Party and has been agreed to in this House. We on this side believe that it doesn't go far enough, and we'll be looking at a further amendment.

I'd like to talk about a few points about the retirement of seniors and how we treat them in this country and what has been happening to the social programs that we see.

There has been talk about the higher income Canadians, and really, they're not in the running here. They are higher income. They have a lot of money. They generally have savings. They're not going to be so much affected by these changes, but it's the lower-middle class and the lower income people who are going to be unfairly targeted by the changes to the OAS.

For the first time, people will be facing higher tax rates after retirement than when they were working, and it's fundamentally wrong that when you do retire, when you finally get an opportunity to retire and maybe pursue some of the dreams that you've had but haven't been able to fulfill because of your commitment to work, to your contributions to this country, that now you're going to be taxed higher than when you were working. There are very few people who are going to be able to deal with this.

The majority of people - let's not fool ourselves - in Canada are not high income, even though last week they said there has been a three-fold growth in Canada in millionaires - 268,000 people having over a million dollars. That's pretty substantial, but let's not forget that we're 30 million people and most people are low income. Most people are middle to low. I think the figure is 3 million to 4 million now live below the poverty line. These people do not have retirement savings. They do not have RRSPs. This is universality, and this is the main question here, and it has got to be available to all people over 65.

What it is being replaced by is an income-testing measure, one that claws back benefits from seniors with other income sources, even modest ones. I view that as a way to fundamentally change universality in Canada. We start with pensions, we start with EI, as they call it now - it's really UI; people are still unemployed; it's not employment income, for sure. Slowly they isolate people and they play people against each other and that's a very serious concern.

But the question of universality is what we have to keep in mind, and often what you do is you - and what I've seen the Liberals do - separate the groups, get one group against another, get them fighting against each other. Then it's a divide-and-conquer method and they've used it very successfully over the last six or seven years that they've been in office. We're seeing them use it here against the seniors and people who will be soon retiring.

I noticed over on the other side of the House there are many people who are going to be very close to retirement and this is going to affect them pretty soon. So, I'm speaking on behalf of them as well because I really, really care for them and I want them to be able to enjoy their years with dignity and respect and opportunity to fulfill some of their dreams.

What people have said about this, and I will quote a couple of people here, is that they consider this as more of a welfare program and people don't like to go on welfare in Canada. That's a fact.

This is something that they've paid into and it's something they've earned, similar to the same argument with the UI program. It's being changed and the changes, the way that they're going, makes it sound like a welfare program. It takes away some dignity.

There is a critique of the program. Walter Kelm did a critique. He carried out a study on behalf of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. He says, "In place of our current system, government will substitute what is basically a minimum welfare system for poor seniors." How will that affect others? The combined claw-back and tax rate for a couple in the $29,000 to $59,000 range is 59.8 percent or, to put it another way, for every dollar retirement income received, Ottawa gets 60 cents back.

Now, in the Yukon $29,000 might not be considered middle class, but this is across the board and doesn't take into consideration the regions and different costs to live in different regions. It's just directly across the board.

I don't consider them wealthy and I don't think it should be carried on the backs of those people, and the Liberal government keeps telling us how more seniors will benefit from the new system, even though they themselves have to admit that a seniors benefit will reduce pension expenditures by $2 billion by the year 2011.

Let's get this picture right. If you're going to reduce expenditures by 2011 but you're going to have more seniors - simple math. I think we know what they're saying. I suspect they hope that we don't use our math that we were taught in our public schools that are also under attack.

Another area of concern, of course, is women. Women are going to be the most hard hit by these changes. Their independence is going to be questioned. Their ability to have their own funds is in question when it's based on the size of the combined spousal income. It puts them in a very difficult situation. What happens if they're in a bad relationship and they have to get out? What happens to them? Has that been considered?

The leader of the official opposition mentioned that these were very confusing changes that were happening and experts have looked at this and they really aren't sure where it's going to go or what's going to happen. I have to agree. Most people know about the changes to the OAS and GIS and the CPP, which I think has to be included in this because the attack - and it is an attack - is coming from all sides and it's attacking every program.

I remember the Liberal government did this years ago and it was a broad-sweeping attack, and people couldn't fight back. They didn't have the resources that the government had. What eventually happened was, many of the programs they wanted got through; some they backed off on, and considered that was a tremendous success because they did get what they wanted in the end because they exhausted people.

What about debate? That's the big question. What happened to debate down in the House of Commons? I think people should be very, very aware that they used procedural moves to choke off debate after seven hours. Only seven hours in the second reading debate were allowed for these changes, were allowed for the CPP changes - seven hours - changes that are going to affect millions of people, often people that don't have a voice. They allowed seven hours.

Why did they cut debate? That's what we have to ask ourselves: why? Because they don't want to go to the people. They know the changes are wrong, they know they're going to hurt the people, and they know the people will object to them. So what do they do? They cut debate.

The federal NDPs had devoted a full day of opposition work to this. Everything they had was focused on debating this, and the Liberals shut it down so the NDP walked out. They had to walk out. The only protest they had left was to walk out, because they didn't have a voice any more, because our democratic government did not want to debate the changes to our seniors programs, to our social programs in this country.

I would like to submit an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to Motion No. 68. I believe it goes a little bit farther. It says a little bit more and, hopefully, it will be considered a friendly amendment. I hope people here will see the intent of what it's meant to do, which is to support the public debate that the Yukon Party has brought forward, but to broaden it a little bit farther to ensure that people know that this government up here, along with the opposition parties, are very concerned and care for the changes that are happening to our social program. With that in mind, I'd like to move an amendment to Motion No. 68.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy: I'll read it out, okay.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy: I move

THAT Motion No. 68 be amended by

(a) removing all words following the phrase "future retirement benefits" and replacing them with the following:

(1) as well as represents an attack on universality of Canada's social programs by replacing a public pension system with a minimal welfare system for the very poorest of seniors; and

(2) imposes severe claw-backs on low and middle-income Canadians, robbing them of an ability to live their retirement in self-reliance and dignity;

and

(b) adding a new paragraph as follows:

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to uphold the sacred trust of our country's obligations to its senior citizens by holding public hearings and cancelling proposed changes and cuts and restoring a comprehensive universal public pension.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre

THAT Motion No. 68 be amended by

(a) removing all the words following the phrase "future retirement benefits" and replacing them with the following:

(1) as well as represents an attack on universality of Canada's social programs by replacing a public pension system with a minimal welfare system for the very poorest of seniors; and

(2) imposes severe claw-backs on low and middle-income Canadians, robbing them of an ability to live their retirement in self-reliance and dignity

and

(b) adding a new paragraph as follows:

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to uphold the sacred trust of our country's obligations to its senior citizens by holding public hearings and cancelling proposed changes and cuts and restoring a comprehensive, universal public pension.

Mr. Hardy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment, my intention is to broaden our discussion beyond the somewhat narrow focus that was proposed before. We've had a chance to address some of the problems and the impacts of the proposed senior benefits, and while asserting that it's important to do so, it has to be recognized that the Liberal government's assault on the pension program goes much farther.

Bill C-2 is aimed at a major increase in premiums to the Canadian Pension Plan coupled with a reduction in benefits. Premiums are going to be increased by a whopping 73 percent over the next six years, which ought to be setting off alarm bells for everyone. There are a great many changes to be introduced with complex and far-reaching impacts.

I don't have time to discuss all of them in detail but I'm going to touch on a few of them.

One is the increase of 73 percent. That's an increase to employers and employees, as they both contribute to the pension plan. How is that really going to impact on Canadians? Well, for businesses, a 73-percent jump is just another additional cost to do business. To the employees, a 73-percent jump is just more money out of their paycheques to spend into the economy, which does support business, but also to take home and to care for their families or themselves. For a self-employed person, it's not employee/employer for a self-employed person. It's the whole shebang, the whole works, and I think it works out that a self-employed person would have to pay in $3,300 a year. By the year 2003 - I'm basing this on the year 2003 right at the moment - the cost is $1,635 that would have to be paid by the employer, and $1,635 would have to be paid by the employee. The self-employed would pay the combined amount.

So, just in that regard, right there, we're looking at a huge, huge increase in costs.

And what about the support to have this turn into a private pension plan? The supporters behind that are the Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute and, of course, the Reform Party are very strong in having the CPP, for instance, abolished and replaced with a super RRSP. The result of that would be to widen the gap between the rich and the poor because most working class and poor Canadians cannot contribute to an RRSP.

And who would end up benefiting? Well, it's very simple to see. If you turn it over to the private sector, of course the investors are going to benefit tremendously. Banks and financial institutions will all have access to that money and they would make the profits on it, and that money would not be brought back into the plan. That money would be kept out in the private sector. So, any profits made on the plan would stay in the private sector and not be rolled back into the plan to improve it.

What happens when we depend on private plans and investment? In short, when we are forced to fend for ourselves, as many would have us do, and risk everything on uncertainties of a volatile and changeable investment money market, we know what happens there.

We have an example in the United States. It happened seven or eight years ago. It was called an S&L program, a savings and loans investment. Much of the savings and loans were based upon preying upon seniors' savings. That was partly due to the deregulation under the Reagan government, a very right-wing movement. They felt it was going to be of benefit. It would create tremendous wealth and growth if that money was allowed to be used in very open investments with no guarantees.

But what actually happened with the savings and loans? I believe the figures ranged close to $7 trillion that were lost, and that was seniors' money in most cases. It was seniors' money. About $7 trillion went missing, disappeared because of bad investments, bogus developments. That's because it was turned over and it was said that "They can do it better; they'll get you more money. We're not going to have any regulations or checks and balances to ensure that the money you invest in the savings and loans will be protected." There was no protection. So, $7 trillion went somewhere, but the majority of it came from the seniors.

Is this where we're going in this country? This is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid that whenever we allow the investment to be taken away from the control mechanisms, when we allow it to go into the private sector, public money saved under a public plan, a social program, be changed to be handled privately, greed will enter into it, manipulation will enter into it. Accountability will fall to the wayside and we could end up with a huge scandal and many hurt seniors in this country.

Women, as I said earlier, are the hardest hit, but not only the women. Disability pensions will become more difficult to obtain. People who rely upon disability pensions are going to be affected. After changes to the plan, people who now qualify for CPP, disability will no longer qualify. There is really no answer to what they would qualify for.

The $3,500 a year that, right at the moment, is being indexed, will no longer be. We see again a regressive CPP under the Liberals. How much it deviates from the original intent of the CPP, which established a plan that was progressive and affordable to low-income and middle-income people, and they keep squeezing it harder and harder.

What's the justification for this? Well, it goes back to the - I'm going to close down soon here - it goes back to -

Speaker: You have two minutes.

Mr. Hardy: It goes back to the CPP, the scare mongering that's been quite common from the federal government over the years to get what they want. They say the CPP was broke. For 40 years the CPP has run exactly the way it is. It has never gone broke. All of a sudden, in one year, it's broke; it's going broke, there's no money there. Forty years it has been running like this. So how come it's all of a sudden like that? Maybe we should take the government to task on this. What do they do? They just get elected and say it's broke.

The other thing we should be aware of is that there were public hearings. A lot of people aren't aware of that, but there were public hearings up here. They did tour the country, and they had many suggestions given to them. I attended those public hearings and spoke on behalf of seniors, and there were many suggestions brought forward from associations, individuals, businesses, and I can see from the changes that are being recommended that they didn't listen to any of these.

The original motion is a good one, in that it asks for public hearings again. There were already public hearings on the CPP, and that's what they're using to say they've already heard and consulted, because they did roll the OAS and the GIS into it, but we have to broaden the whole thing and tell them to come back and listen to what people say and respond to what the people say, because they were here before - a year and a half ago - and they got told very clearly, don't mess with this, don't start fooling around with this, and they went back and they did it, and they shut down debate when people tried to object.

So I hope people will support this and recognize that it's done in an attempt to assist seniors, and in no way it's meant to take away from the previous motio