William Arnold PETERS

PETERS, William Arnold

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Timiskaming (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 14, 1922
Deceased Date
September 17, 1996
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Peters
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=451d41d6-6f60-40ef-87f1-bd1aea75e8c2&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
miner, representative

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
CCF
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
CCF
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
August 3, 1961 - April 19, 1962
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 1221)


November 22, 1979

Mr. Peters:

I thank the hon. member but I think she is rushing my speech. I was pointing out that we had originally passed this piece of legislation for the recipient who was a widow between the ages of 60 and 65. Then this bill came before the former minister of national health and welfare and she put in the six months' provision. Certainly that was a great advantage. We are talking about 200 recipients coming on stream per month, so it is not a large number. But it meant that after the six months, after being used to getting approximately $600 when her husband died under the legislation of the previous government, she was cut off and she did not get anything more until she was 65 years of age and eligible again. This was not good. Originally she had to move out of her place within the month, depending on what time of the month her husband died, because she would not have enough money to keep the place going. Then the allowance was given for a six-month period. This minister, in passing this legislation, is providing her with an income which will be half of that provided to both of them until she reaches the prescribed age.

I asked the expert on pensions in this House about the matter. He indicated to me that there were not too many husbands in this category. In fact, the number was insignificant. Normally the women were the ones being discriminated against.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare has had considerable experience in matters of health and welfare in a

November 22, 1979

previous job where I am sure he came into contact with many needy cases, mostly in the municipal field. As a result of his efforts in his previous occupation to provide people with a reasonable income, I am sure he would be quite prepared to support the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) in his contention that we should be doing something for these people on the basis of need rather than on the basis of these restrictions that involve such things as whether or not you are married, or shacked up. I do not suppose that is a nice phrase to use when talking about people between the ages of 60 and 65 who are living together for certain reasons. Differences are made, and the advantage comes in many cases if you have neglected to involve yourself in matrimony.

The example was given by the hon. member for Roberval of brothers and sisters, two brothers or two sisters, living in the same house and receiving more money than two people who were married. That highlights a need. The former minister of national health and welfare was interested in looking at, and was in that office long enough to look at a guaranteed annual income plan. All the problems of passing legislation that affects a specific number of people in specific circumstances could be overcome by providing a guaranteed annual income. This would eliminate many of the provincial inspectors who now have to decide on the financial position of the person requesting assistance.

That would not make redundant the work of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When he first came here he inherited the mantle of his predecessor who was interested in providing, where possible, pensions to aid those not able to assist themselves. I know the amount of mail he receives from people all over the country asking for assistance in correcting many of the inequalities created by our system.

1 hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will look at the studies done by previous governments to see if there is some way of eliminating some of the bureaucrats at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, who administer our hodge-podge forms of social assistance to those in need. Whether this government is in power or not, he would be more comfortable when moving on to other jobs in the other places knowing that he had accomplished something other health ministers could not accomplish, or have been unwilling to accomplish.

I am sure in the days to come the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will find loopholes in this legislation. There will be others who should and could be assisted. I hope the minister continues to turn to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for advice and encouragement. I am sure he has found it has been readily available on many occasions. In this way we can plug some of the loopholes that have made parts of our social legislation rather ridiculous.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

It might help. I agree there might not be any point in picking out the ones that have never been used and which were therefore triggered by the budget rather than by special order because many of them were raised, not lowered, and only the lower ones were used. In many of these cases the changes which have been made, I gather the parliamentary secretary is telling us, have involved reductions in tariffs, not increases.

Clause 2 includes all those items in schedule I so really we have lost money. Is the amount shown anywhere in this document? Is an estimate made of the sum which might have been anticipated had the changes not been made? In other words, does this indicate what revenue from duty resulting from these amendments, either raising or lowering the amounts, might have been expected? This presents us with a real problem because there is no way of knowing from what we have before us what the general purpose of these changes is- for example, whether they reflect changes negotiated under GATT. Nor do we know how they are applied. There is no indication that Canada has entered into international agreements with regard to specific commodities and I am not able to tell from the bill whether we have decreased or increased total income from duty. Some items moved up 5 per cent, say, or down 3 per cent, but from the point of view of the workings of the economic system it is impossible to tell where we are going. Maybe I am missing something. I see nothing here enabling us to estimate the results of these changes this year as

November 19, 1979

compared, for example, with last year, and 1 am suggesting we do something about this from now on. As I say, if I am missing the point I should like the parliamentary secretary to tell me. He has been very helpful so far.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 refers to bringing goods out of warehouses for consumption. 1 would like to know what effect this will have on strawberries, for instance, that are in warehouses in Canada. We have large quantities of canned strawberries in warehouses. During a period when we restrict the importation of fresh strawberries, will this have an effect on how we trigger this section? Is it related in any way to the tariff or the duty we put on a commodity that may be in conflict with a commodity that we have in storage in warehouses? I suppose it can be related to eggs that are in storage. During a period when the price of fresh laid eggs goes up considerably and there is a shortage, those eggs are brought out of storage. They would not be in competition with fresh laid eggs as they are stored eggs, but is this the purpose of clause 14, or does it have another purpose?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the explanation with regard to the tariff on an American product being at the American price. I suppose it is a price at a given time in a given area. If that is so, what we are talking about is a 16 per cent advantage.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, we are allowed 20 minutes.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink