Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, the proposal to extend spouse's allowance to all widowed individu-

May 2, 1985

Adjournment Debate

als aged 60 to 64 was a definite commitment made during the election campaign.

Nobody denies the fact that this group has been identified as one of the most vulnerable groups amongst all the 60 to 64 year olds who are not yet entitled to pension and need help. What surprises me is that a parliamentary task force on pensions, set up in previous years, has produced a report which recommended the measure we just passed. The Hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is so interested in social affairs that I suppose he was a member of that task force.

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) to note that in his comments he used the word "injustice" many times as well as the expression what used to be "la belle province", and I want to point out to him that the province of Quebec is still a "belle province". In reply to his question, I can say that we are indeed aware of the amendments made by the Quebec Government to the Quebec Pension Plan, making the payment of pension benefits available at age of 60, with an actuarial adjustment. You explained it quite well. This change, which has been in effect since January 1, 1984, allows contributors to the plan to receive early retirement benefits provided they leave their job. The pension of those requesting their benefits before age 65 are reduced by 0.5 per cent for each month remaining until they reach that age. It is very important to note that, because of the actuarial reduction factor, the amount of the benefits paid out over the lifetime of those who opt for early retirement is equivalent to the amount of unreduced benefits which would have been paid to them had they waited until the age of 65 to retire.

Since the establishment of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans in 1966, there have always been differences between the two plans. Early retirement is only one example of this. However, in spite of these differences, the two plans have always been considered basically similar.

As for determining under which plan the benefits should be paid, the rules are quite simple. Someone who has contributed only to the Quebec Pension Plan is protected by this plan wherever he or she resides. By the same token, someone who has contributed only to the Canada Pension Plan is protected by this plan, wherever he or she resides. For people who have contributed to both plans, there is an agreement between the Canada and Quebec Governments dealing with the payment of benefits. Under this agreement, a contributor to both plans who resides in Quebec at the time of his application for benefits is subject to the provisions of the Quebec Pension Plan. On the other hand, if he resides in a Canadian province other than Quebec at the time of his request for benefits, he is subject to the Canada Pension Plan.

I find it quite fair that all those who have contributed to a plan can equally benefit from it. This is why I do not see any need to amend the rules for the payment of benefits.

As for the question asked by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, I believe that his suggestion would be quite welcome in the context of the reform of the Canada Pension Plan which we supported during the election campaign and which would recognize provincial jurisdictions.

February 5, 1985

Adjournment Debate

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, the question raised today by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is of critical importance, but I really wish she could raise it more calmly and less aggressively. If she did, we women could perhaps get better results.

It is a fact that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is essential for women to gain economic equality. As the Hon. Member is aware, two departments and one agency-

Mrs. Bertrand:

Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, two departments and one government agency are responsible for applying the principle of equal pay for work of equal value within the Public Service. First of all, as the employer for the whole Public Service, the Treasury Board has the overall responsibility of determining rates of pay. The Department of Labour keeps employers informed about government policies and encourages them to recognize the problems which can exist in the workplace and to find mutually agreeable solutions. Finally, the Canadian Human Rights Commission receives the complaints lodged by employees coming under federal jurisdiction who were unable to obtain satisfaction from their employers.

I wish to emphasize that, to this date, four types of complaints laid by members of the Public Service have been settled to their satisfaction. The employees involved were able to obtain a satisfactory settlement in every case. It is only recently that one case had to be referred to a panel of the Human Rights Commission.

Legislation guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value has existed since 1977. However, these measures by themselves are not enough. They have to be applied efficiently. In the Speech from the Throne we find a commitment by the new Government guaranteeing compliance with the principle or equal pay in all sectors under federal jurisdiction. The Minis-

January 28, 1985

Adjournment Debate

ter responsible for the Status of Women has already written to his colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), with a view to initiating discussions to ensure that Canadian women will achieve economic equality in the workplace. This will happen eventually and as soon as possible.

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) implies that the government is considering lower social security standards, particularly benefits, old age security and family allowances. The government never did announce such measures. However, we believe that a review of those social programs is necessary if we are to implement a worthwhile social policy designed to allocate our resources properly during this period when heavy constraints are a drain on the financial resources of the federal government.

We have every intention of stabilizing our social programs, while respecting the principle of equity in our social policy.

In addition, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will recall that, in the Speech from the Throne and in our economic statement, we did announce our intention to extend the spouse allowance program to all low income widows and widowers aged 60 to 64. That measure shows that, far from wanting to weaken existing social programs, we will do our best to improve them.

I want to say again that any proposed change in social programs will take into consideration our priority, which is to protect needy Canadians. Let it be clearly understood that we have no intention whatsoever to cut the benefits of those people.

As you know, we will soon make public a working document on family allowances as well as on benefits and tax relief for the elderly. The government will be seeking the advice of all interested parties, including the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, and ask for their suggestions concerning improvements to those programs.