TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, October 24, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion 7065
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7067
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 7072
Motion for concurrence 7074
Consideration resumed of motion 7074
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7082
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7084
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7087
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7089
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7096
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7096
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7097
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7098
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7098
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7102
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7102
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 7102
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7103
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7104
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7104
Bill C-56. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted. 7105
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7106
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7107
Consideration resumed of motion. 7107
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7108
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7116
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7117
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7131
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7134
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7135
7065
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 24, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from September 23 consideration of
motion.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise in this House to speak to the
motion put forth by my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast,
a proposal that came as a surprise to me, and I must say right
away that I am totally opposed to it.
Before preparing my remarks, I read with a great deal of
attention the speech the hon. member for Calgary Northeast
made before this House to try to understand where he was
coming from, and I must confess that a few of the things I read
made me jump.
At first glance, the member seems to justify denying entry
into Canada to HIV-positive applicants for economic reasons.
But a closer look revealed deeper and more troubling underlying
reasons. For one thing, the cost argument is not really relevant in
this debate, and this for two reasons: first, as regards the real
cost of treating AIDS patients, my colleague inflates the figures.
Based on available estimates, the cost to treat each patient is
certainly not a minimum of $200,000; it is actually closer to half
the amount quoted by my hon. colleague.
In addition, nothing proves that more money will be saved by
subjecting immigration applicants to HIV screening than to
screening for other diseases. An extensive study by a group of
researchers from the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and
Law shows that if Canada were to decide to systematically test
all immigrants to determine if they are HIV positive, this would
be a political decision rather than one based on economic
considerations.
As part of their study, the researchers compared AIDS and
coronary disease using available data concerning all immigrants
admitted to Canada in 1988 to demonstrate that these two health
problems weigh equally heavily on the Canadian health system.
To target only the HIV virus is discriminatory, I believe.
(1105)
In his September 23 speech the hon. member continues to
surprise us by saying: ``When implemented the motion would be
a significant step in the war on AIDS''. This shows how little my
colleague knows about AIDS. AIDS is an international plague
that hits indiscriminately without sparing any society, culture or
country.
How can the hon. member think for one minute that closing
off our borders will solve the problem? According to this logic,
we should also require all Canadians coming back from abroad
to take this test. And what about the open border with the U.S.,
diplomats and the cost of all these millions of tests?
As the Official Opposition critic on health, I am, needless to
say, concerned about AIDS. This terrifying disease is spreading
at an alarming rate. According to the most conservative
estimates, over 30 to 40 million people will have AIDS by the
year 2000, less than six years from now. It is predicted that
30,000 Canadians will develop AIDS within the next five or six
years. These figures are alarming and closing our doors to
immigrants will not change this reality in any way.
So what can we do? While we wait for a cure, the only tools
available to try to stop the spread of this terrible disease are
awareness and prevention. That is why the Official Opposition
is asking the government to create a committee to review the
Canadian AIDS strategy, Phase II.
That is also why I regularly ask the Minister of Health to
allocate her budget better, because cutting transfer payments for
health-care to the provinces every year is no way to help them
launch effective awareness and prevention campaigns.
7066
Spending $12 million on a forum that will be totally useless
is no way either to protect people in Quebec and Canada. If the
federal government took the AIDS threat seriously, it would
have invested the forum's $12 million in research or in
assistance or awareness programs. Despite several years of
efforts to sensitize the population, there obviously remain many
prejudices about this terrible disease and the virus associated
with it.
The motion before us reflects very well this lack of
understanding and the prejudices attached to it. Some still think
that HIV can be contracted through casual contact, just like the
flu. We know that such is not the case. Others even see this
disease as God's punishment. It is high time to sensitize
everyone to this disease that will become increasingly present in
our society.
What is worse is that those who support this motion seem to
mistakenly believe that an HIV-positive person can no longer
make a contribution to society, that they can only be a burden to
society. This attitude is regrettable and even shocking for
Canadians with this terrible disease who must learn to live not
only with the virus but also with the prejudices, lack of
understanding and fear of others.
We in the Bloc Quebecois reject this attitude of denigrating
and attacking everything one fears or does not understand; of
closing our minds instead of opening them; of telling
Canadians: ``Let us keep our heads in the sand and maybe when
we stick our heads out again, the AIDS problem will be gone and
we will be spared''.
No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the attitude we should take. It is
not Quebecers' attitude and it is certainly not the attitude that
the vast majority of Canadians would want to take.
This motion betrays ignorance about the terrifying AIDS
problem. Should it be implemented, this backward initiative
would take us back to the dark ages and that is why the Bloc
Quebecois and I vigorously oppose this motion.
(1110 )
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to
continue the debate regarding the private member's motion
placed before the House by the member for Calgary Northeast.
The member is demanding that all applicants for immigration to
Canada be tested and screened for HIV, the AIDS virus, that all
testing be regulated by the government, and that a positive result
of an HIV screening be included as grounds for inadmissibility
to Canada.
The member for Calgary Northeast tells us in Commons
Debates of September 23, 1994 there is no need to debate his
motion, that common sense should prevail and dictate the
direction the government should take. The only sense revealed
by the member may be common to him and his colleagues of the
same ilk, but not common to those with analytical minds that
seek the relationships between and among ideas, concepts, facts,
events and other dynamic phenomena that assist one in a search
for truth.
It is true the Immigration Act requires that visitors and
immigrants meet two medically related criteria before being
allowed into Canada. The first states that immigrants must not
represent a danger to public health or safety. The second states
that their admission must not cause excessive demands on
Canada's health and social service systems.
To meet these criteria, applicants for immigration are
medically examined according to a standard format used
worldwide. This medical examination depends on a complete
medical history, a complete physical examination, a urine test
for applicants five years and older, a chest X-ray for those over
10 years old, and a syphilis blood test for those 15 years and
older.
The blood test for syphilis is the only test performed for one
specific disease. The X-ray, in turn, may detect a variety of
possible ailments such as heart abnormalities, tumours and
tuberculosis.
Although there is an attempt to consistently adhere to
established procedures, variations in testing will always exist
from country to country, from doctor to doctor, depending on
expertise and resources available.
It must be noted that immigrants are not routinely tested for
HIV. However, during the course of any routine examination the
doctor may decide to order further specific tests. At times, if the
initial medical assessment indicates symptoms compatible to
HIV-AIDS or if the client falls within a high risk group, the
doctor may proceed with an HIV test.
In the recent past, several applicants have been refused
admission due to the advanced state of their disease. Most of
these people were classified as inadmissible to Canada based on
the excessive demand criterion and not a declaration that they
were risks to public health.
HIV infection and AIDS are not contagious like diseases such
as tuberculosis. AIDS and HIV can only be transmitted by
specific high risk activities such as injected drug use or unsafe
sexual practices, not through casual contact. Therefore, a
Canadian resident who is willing to engage in high risk activity
with a visitor or immigrant is as likely to engage in a similar
activity with another Canadian. The risk of HIV infection comes
not from the presence of foreigners but the practice of specific
behaviour.
The best defence against the spread of HIV, whether from a
Canadian or from a foreigner, is an educated population. It is not
a surprise therefore that many organizations such as the
Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Hemophilia
Society, the Canadian Red Cross, the European Parliament, the
British Medical Association, to name just a few, all support the
view that visitors do not represent a danger to public health.
7067
In January 1991 a discussion paper prepared by Employment
and Immigration Canada as part of its review of medical
inadmissibility criteria in the Immigration Act stated:
(1115 )
``At the present time Health and Welfare Canada does not
consider persons with HIV-AIDS per se as a danger to public
health or safety. HIV-AIDS is not considered a dangerous
infectious disease, but rather a chronic disease like cancer or
heart disease''.
The scientific community has argued that allowing a person
with HIV into Canada does not pose a threat to the health and
safety of Canadians, a position endorsed by the Government of
Canada.
In April 1991 the then minister of health and welfare, Perrin
Beatty, announced in Vancouver: ``Our expert advisory
committee concluded AIDS and HIV are not a threat to public
health during short term travel to Canada. I am pleased to
announce that we have revised the guidelines for our medical
officers. We will ensure that visitors with AIDS or HIV infection
will be treated in exactly the same manner as any other visitor to
Canada''.
The government's position was reinforced further by the hon.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he stated: ``It is
the policy of this government that persons with HIV-AIDS do
not generally represent a danger to the public. Our main concern
is with respect to excessive demands on the health care system''.
These statements are contained in a letter addressed to the
Canadian AIDS Society dated August 3, 1994.
In dealing with the second health related criterion, that of
excessive demand, there will be little concern with those
visiting Canada for a short period of time, no concern because
they would not qualify for health service and most visitors
would be carrying their own health protection plans. The
excessive demand criterion would be invoked when there is a
reason to believe that the applicant would require medical
treatment while in Canada.
In the case of immigrants, it would be inappropriate to
institute a blanket exclusion of persons with HIV. The Canadian
Human Rights Commission states that comprehensive
individual assessments must be the main tool for determining
eligibility, and lumping individuals into groups or broad
categories is discriminatory.
In assessing whether an immigrant with HIV would place
excessive demand on Canada's health care and social services
system many factors need to be taken into consideration. These
include whether the person is ill, and the person's potential
contributions to Canadian society.
We know that some people have been infected with HIV for at
least 12 years and still do not show signs of illness. We do not
know whether everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS.
How can we refuse to allow a person to immigrate on the
grounds that he or she might become ill? Even those who have
some signs of illness can still make a significant contribution to
Canadian society.
Current Canadian immigration policy focuses too much on a
person's disability and fails to take into account his or her
ability to contribute to society. Each case must be judged on its
merits.
The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration states: ``It
is the policy of this government that persons living with
HIV-AIDS not be singled out for immigration purposes. I would
like to assure you that I and the officials of citizenship and
immigration will do our utmost to ensure that persons living
with HIV-AIDS are treated with the same respect and concern
for rights as any other visitor to Canada''.
The current Immigration Act requires that persons seeking
admission to Canada as visitors or as immigrants be subject to
standards of admission that do not discriminate in a manner
which would be prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Section 15 of the charter dictates: ``Every
individual is equal before and under the law without
discrimination and in particular without discrimination based
on physical disability''.
Canada has traditionally taken a leadership role in
recognizing human rights and extending a helping hand to those
in need. I am sure the member for Calgary Northeast would be
proud and so would his party members in seeing Canada
continuing with these honourable, worldly aspirations.
(1120 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin my speech let me say that I am
absolutely and thoroughly appalled at the statements that have
been made in this House on this motion. It reflects an absolute
and profound lack of understanding of the disease and more
important, a lack of understanding and consideration for the
health and welfare of Canadian citizens.
This is obviously a politically protected disease. We feel sorry
for anybody who is HIV positive and has AIDS. But let it be
known that we cannot compromise the health and welfare of
Canadians.
In any event, I rise today in support of my esteemed
colleague's Motion No. 285 to screen all immigrants for HIV
under sections 11(1) and 11(3) of our Immigration Act.
7068
It is not pleasurable to speak about this topic, a modern
plague that up to 1993 has claimed 9,910 adult cases including
107 pediatric cases. Of these, 6,930 people have been killed.
It is a disease that is as horrific as any fatal illness, particularly
so since the individuals who have it are in the prime of their
lives. They usually succumb between the ages of 25 and 45, a
period that is most productive, with a major part of their lives
still remaining.
I have had numerous patients in the past with this terrible
disease. I can say from a personal factor that it has been a
sobering and profoundly tragic experience to deal with these
individuals, particularly in my age group when these individuals
are dying before me.
You cannot cure them. All you can give to them is palliative
treatment and treat their intercurrent illnesses. To see them
waste away is a horrible thing. I encourage those here who have
contact with anybody who has AIDS to get to know them and
understand the profound pain, agony and anguish they and their
families endure.
Equally tragic is to deal with the survivors who are left
behind, the family and friends who have to pick up the pieces
after their loved ones die. No kind words or understanding can
ever fill the void that is left behind from the death of a loved one.
It is impossible to fathom or quantify this loss in any terms
whatsoever.
My friend has brought this motion forward, not because we
are against people who are HIV positive and not because we are
against people who have AIDS, the physical manifestations of
having the virus. He brought it forward because we are public
servants and we are compelled and obligated as elected
representatives of this country to protect its people and to enact
legislation along these lines. We do this especially for diseases
or events that are going to be of great harm to them.
There is no question that HIV positively leads to AIDS and
AIDS kills. If any member does not believe this, if a doctor said
you were HIV positive, look into your hearts and see what you
would feel. Therefore we do this in the name of public safety for
all Canadians.
I should mention that we already protect the health and
welfare of Canadians in a number of forms. We test drugs and
therapeutic modalities in health to ensure they are safe. There is
the checking of blood products which has caused so much
consternation of late. There is the checking of products that are
sold over the counter to ensure they are safe for public use and
the checking of food stocks, both local and imported.
Immigrants to this country are checked for a number of
illnesses, including tuberculosis and syphilis, diseases that are
generally not fatal, diseases that are cheap to treat and are
curable, unlike AIDS.
Why is there such a vocal opposition to my friend's motion?
The disease is pandemic, which means it covers the entire
planet. It is universally fatal. It is incurable and it costs money.
It costs a lot of money. Every patient who is deemed HIV
positive will ultimately cost the taxpayer at least $100,000 per
year. This does not take into consideration the very important
factor of potential years of life lost for these people.
(1125)
Between 1987 and 1991 the potential years of life lost for men
rose from 17,650 years to almost 40,000 years. Why is there
such a backlash against something that we believe is so
fundamentally necessary for the protection of Canadians? Why
is there so much opposition to this?
The reason is that it is not an opposition by the majority of
Canadians. At least 77 per cent of people in recent polls are
strongly in favour of immigrants being tested for HIV positive.
The reason for this vocal opposition is that it comes from very
small groups, small in number but loud in voice. These groups
do not represent the majority of people in this country and are
admittedly there for their own interests. They believe that
people coming to this country if tested positive for HIV, would
have a stigma attached to them, that they would be discriminated
against.
Fortunately for the Canadian public and perhaps tragically for
them, they would not be allowed into this country. This is not
something personal. This is something we are going to enact for
the betterment and the health and welfare of Canadian people.
The individuals who are HIV positive or who subsequently
develop AIDS deserve our sympathy and compassion, but it
does not mean we have to subject Canadian people to exposure
to this illness which is fatal 100 per cent of the time.
We can argue this on purely moral grounds, but another
compelling reason is the cost. Unlike what my colleague
mentioned earlier in the day that she does not believe it would
cost more to the Canadian taxpayer, any health professional in
this country would tell you that it is expensive to treat somebody
who is HIV positive.
They do have a series of blood tests that are used to monitor a
subsection of their lymphocyte count and we give them
medications to prevent intercurrent illnesses. Due to better
drugs and better treatment modalities and prophylactic
treatments we can use this material to lengthen people's lives.
This actually increases the cost to our health system, one that I
would say is falling apart at the seams, one that does not have
any money. These costs are not inconsequential. As my
esteemed colleague across the way mentioned, we are going to
have 30,000 more people with AIDS. How much is this going to
cost the Canadian taxpayer? Three billion dollars.
Our health care system right now is falling apart. Waiting lists
are increasing. Hospital beds are closing. People are dying on
waiting lists. From her own province alone she has tens of
thousands of people on waiting lists, hundreds of whom are
waiting for urgent surgery. If more people are let in to add to the
overall cost burden to our health system, those Canadian
citizens will not get the treatment they deserve.
7069
Is this threat from HIV real or is it imagined? Let us look
at some areas of the world. As I said before, it is a pandemic.
In certain areas of Africa where I have worked the HIV
positivity rate is 30 per cent or more. In south east Asia there
has been an explosion of HIV positivity. What a tragedy for
those countries, but does it mean that we need to bring this
tragedy to our door, bring it to this country and expose
Canadian citizens to it?
The World Health Organization says that AIDS is a pandemic
and that it will continue well into the 21st century. I quote the
WHO's AIDS program director: ``There is far worse to come as
millions of infected people will fall ill and die''.
There is no breakthrough and I do not think one is imminent.
If the HIV epidemic continues to expand at this rate on the Asian
continent, we will soon see more Asians infected with HIV than
in Africa where there is an explosion of HIV positivity. If this is
not a problem, if this disease is not infectious, if this disease
does not kill, then why is the WHO so concerned about it?
(1130)
In conclusion, this is not a diatribe against people who have
HIV. This is not a diatribe against people who have AIDS, drug
abusers, homosexuals, hemophiliacs or any other unfortunate
person who has been infected with the disease. These people
deserve the deepest sympathy and compassion which everybody
from my side of the floor extends to them. As I said before, a far
more important concern for us is to ensure the health, welfare
and safety of Canadians.
That is the reason for the motion of my friend. Anyone who
does not support it is sticking his or her head in the sand and
severely compromising the health and welfare of Canadians.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me respond to a few of the comments of the hon. member from
the other side.
First he attacked our motives. He said that we were merely
being pulled along by some minority group. The government has
announced that it is reviewing its policy on testing for HIV so I
think the member who has introduced the motion should take
some comfort in it.
The reason we are opposing the private member's motion
today is that we want to give the government time to review the
bill and make a decision. Once the government makes its
decision perhaps we can have a more focused and more
productive debate.
I acknowledge as much as anyone that HIV leads to AIDS and
AIDS is deadly. Out of my high school graduating class of 55
people, 3 are dead from AIDS. One of them happened to be a
very close friend. I do not think that anyone from that side of the
House or this side of the House has the right to say that we
obviously do not care, that we are sticking our heads in the sand,
or to make any other personal comment.
Canadians recognize that AIDS is deadly and that it kills, but
too often the debate gets mixed into other issues. Too often it
gets thrown into an intolerance toward certain communities in
our country. Too often it gets mixed into homophobic groups,
groups that say that AIDS is a plague on the homosexual
community because God is bringing down his wrath. It is that
kind of thing we want to avoid. We want to have a reasonable,
high quality debate based on the facts.
An uninformed decision by the House would accomplish very
little. As I have said, the government is currently reviewing the
extensive information we have on HIV and will be announcing
its decision soon. Our decisions will appropriately reflect
concerns for public health demand on the health care system,
social justice and economic matters that concern us today.
We must not aggravate public misunderstanding about HIV.
Too many people think one can get HIV and AIDS through
casual contact. Too many people think one get it by shaking
hands when in fact one can only get it through the transmission
of certain body fluids, more specifically blood and semen.
We must take care to dispassionately analyse and reflect on
the issues that are too often fraught with prejudice and
discrimination. It is also incorrect to say that AIDS can be
transmitted by simple contact. Too many people think we should
not even allow visitors into the country who have AIDS. Last
year for example, there was a forum on AIDS in Vancouver and
certain members of the House said that we should not let these
people in because they were a risk to Canadians.
In short, we must avoid being stampeded into adopting a
policy based more on fear than on fact, fear that is often based on
misunderstanding, misinformation and ignorance. Public
misunderstanding could direct a misunderstanding toward
immigrants even though immigrants are no more likely to test
HIV positive than native born residents.
My friends from the other side have indicated there are certain
places in the world that have an epidemic of AIDS. Certainly it
is clear given the current policy that even in those places we
would test for HIV and AIDS.
Mr. Hanger: But you are not.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): You are not.
Mr. Knutson: We are. Check the facts. It would merely foster
the kind of misunderstanding and fear about HIV that we should
be working to overcome.
The government recognizes Canadians' concerns about HIV
and HIV testing for immigrants. We are addressing these
concerns in the most constructive way possible, by conducting a
thorough review of all medical testing with the benefit of the
best expert advice and of consultations. When the review is
complete the government will take whatever action is necessary
to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to preserve the
integrity of our health and social services.
7070
(1135)
HIV testing takes place now under certain circumstances.
Under current guidelines immigrant applicants found to be HIV
positive may be deemed to be medically inadmissible. Those
grounds for refusing admission are based on the consequences,
the impact admitting a particular person would have on Canada,
whatever the person's specific medical condition.
Medical opinion does agree on the fact that a person with HIV
does not represent a threat to public health or safety merely
because of the infection. In other words the persons must
involve themselves in a high risk activity, which normally
means unsafe sex.
Refusing admission to applicants with HIV would have to be
based on any excessive demand they might place on our health
care system or social services. The act and regulations do not
require medical officers to test for HIV. They are authorized
however, to do so if they have reason to suspect an infection. As
it stands now testing for HIV does take place when there is
reason to do so. We must ask the question: Are the current
guidelines working to protect the Canadian health care system
from excessive demands?
In conclusion let me say that the government is reviewing the
matter. Let us wait for the government's decision and then we
can have a more focused and more productive debate.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak in support of the motion to regulate testing of
all applicants for immigration for HIV-AIDS.
Today I would like to talk about a potentially massive health
care problem which could be easily averted if we as
parliamentarians take action. The problem is the entrance into
Canada of HIV or AIDS infected immigrants. We are talking
about immigrants, not visitors.
AIDS is a relatively new phenomenon in comparison with
other diseases. The term has only entered the vocabulary of most
Canadians over the past decade. Public awareness of the disease
is still far less than it should be. Consequently there has often
been a lag in the response of governments and institutions in
dealing with the problem. We are aware that AIDS is only
communicated in certain instances, not by casual contact. This
is a situation which we must rectify today.
What is proposed is mandatory HIV-AIDS testing for all new
immigrants to Canada. There is a great deal of logic and
common sense to the proposal. I believe the action would be
supported by a substantial majority of the Canadian public.
The facts are simple. The treatment of patients infected with
the HIV virus and AIDS is an enormously expensive
undertaking. Despite the millions of dollars spent on research, at
this time there appears to be very little hope for a cure or even an
effective vaccine. Those who study AIDS continue to advocate
prevention as the best line of defence.
The motion could play a key role in reducing the number of
Canadians who would otherwise be infected by the disease. HIV
and AIDS infection is spreading rapidly across the world. These
are the current numbers: by mid-1994 approximately 986,000
cases of aids have been reported. However, as the World Health
Organization has noted, several factors suggest this is only a
small part of a larger total. Many countries were slow to admit
they have an AIDS problem and to move to set up systematic
surveillance and reporting.
In areas where expertise and blood testing facilities are
lacking it may be difficult to differentiate AIDS from other
common diseases. In remote parts of the developing world many
people fall ill and die without ever coming into contact with
modern health services. Given these factors the World Health
Organization believes the number of people to be infected with
AIDS is much higher. The WHO estimates that by early 1994
more than three million cases of aids have actually occurred,
including over 500,000 infants born to HIV infected women.
Some may argue that three million cases in a world population
of over five billion does not represent a major health crisis, but
the number of AIDS cases is actually a small part of a much
larger problem. AIDS is the late stage of infection by a virus that
can take more than a decade to cause illness.
(1140 )
The real measure of the scope of the epidemic is the number of
people infected with HIV. The World Health Organization
estimates there are more than 15 million people worldwide,
including more than a million children infected with the virus.
By the year 2000 if conservative forecasts prove correct, the
cumulative total of HIV infections may reach 30 million to 40
million and the number of AIDS cases, more than 10 million.
A World Health Organization publication entitled ``AIDS,
Images of the Epidemic'' notes the need for proper surveillance
for better understanding of the disease. It notes that the most
convenient approach to surveillance is to locate it in the health
care system and test people who come in for care.
I believe the motion being put forward today is very much in
the spirit of that recommendation. Canada already has in place
the means to impose HIV-AIDS testing on immigrant
applicants. These powers are contained in subsection 19(1) of
the Immigration Act.
7071
Canada has a long history of facing the challenge of
infectious and lethal diseases brought to our country by
immigrants and newcomers. For example, the forced quarantine
of European immigrants for cholera and typhoid on the Quebec
island of Grosse-Île is well documented. The island is now
considered to be part of Canadian history and was recently
visited by Irish President Mary Robinson because of its
significance. Although Grosse-Île was at times a place of death
and great suffering, it served the purpose of protecting the
Canadian population as a whole from infection by these terrible
diseases. It was the guiding principle then and it must remain
the guiding principle for our immigration officials today.
Members of Parliament are accountable to the people they
were elected to serve. Too often as members we hear stories of
how the system failed. Sometimes it is a case of a criminal being
paroled to offend a second time. Other times it is a case of a
deportation order not being followed through and a policeman
being murdered as a result.
If we do not follow through on the motion being discussed
today, I believe one day the government will have to account to
victims and friends and families of victims who contracted the
disease through government inaction.
Why must we allow this to happen? Why is it that so often the
government and governments like it must wait to be confronted
by the victims before they make changes to policies? It is not
unduly cruel to deny HIV and AIDS sufferers entrance to the
country if it will prevent even one Canadian from contracting
the disease. Persons infected with HIV and AIDS clearly, in the
words of the Immigration Act, are or are likely to be a danger to
public health or public safety. Something must be done.
Protection of the public is not the only criterion for denying
individuals infected with AIDS or HIV the right to immigrate to
Canada. The second part of the act takes into consideration
another important component of any discussion of health care
and that issue is cost. The act recognizes it should not be a
priority of government to admit to the country those who will be
a burden on the Canadian health care system.
Clearly immigrants infected with HIV or AIDS would be a
source of excessive demand on the Canadian health care system.
The disease is as expensive to treat as it is inexpensive to
prevent. Recent figures from the United States show the average
cost of treating a person with AIDS was $32,000 a year and the
annual cost of treating a person with HIV but not AIDS was
estimated at $5,150 a year. In 1991 the cost of HIV and AIDS
care in the United States was estimated at $5.8 billion, including
$4.4 billion for people with AIDS and $1.4 billion for HIV
infected persons without AIDS.
In Canada some figures have shown the cost per year for
persons infected with AIDS is $33,900. Our health care system
is already overburdened and many Canadians have been forced
on to waiting lists because of funding cutbacks. I call on the
government not to aggravate the problem further by allowing
immigrants with a terminal contagious disease into the country.
There are other factors to consider. Canada's taxpayer funded
health care system is available to all citizens who want to use it.
This is not the case for most other countries. It is conceivable
that individuals knowingly infected with this virus could come
to Canada because we have a publicly funded and accessible
health care system. Our system may even be desirable to U.S.
residents suffering from the disease, millions of whom have no
health care insurance.
I would also like to note at this point that the United States
already tests applicants for legal immigration to that country for
AIDS and HIV.
In conclusion, a battery of blood tests is already part of the
standard medical examination that is mandatory for all
immigrants. Adding HIV will not substantially increase the cost
of examinations, most of which are user pay. The cost of an
HIV-AIDS test is $12, approximately one-third the cost of a test
for tuberculosis. There is no good reason not to test for and
exclude immigrant applicants with HIV since those with other
untreatable or serious communicable diseases are already
subject to exclusion.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the risk of disappointing my hon. colleague, I would like to point
out that he is not the first one to deal with the issue which he is
bringing to our attention today.
[English]
The government has already begun a review of the issue of
inadmissibility on medical grounds. Indeed, the review was long
overdue. The last time immigration legislation concerning
medical inadmissibility was reviewed was in 1978. It obviously
needs to be updated. There we agree.
The scope of the review goes well beyond the question of HIV
testing of potential immigrants.
[Translation]
Although it is an important part of the problem, it is only one
aspect among others. Indeed, the situation is much more
complex than it seems. We are now reviewing the whole issue of
inadmissibility for medical reasons. The provinces and
interested non-governmental organizations have already been
consulted about some recommendations arising from this
review.
7072
You must understand that routine examinations go back way
before AIDS appeared. The nature of the tests has evolved as
technology progressed, so it is necessary to say what specific
examinations prospective immigrants should now undergo.
In particular, the effectiveness of routine examinations to
discover diseases that threaten Canadians' health or to identify
people whose health would impose an excessive burden on our
social or health systems is being reviewed.
[English]
It is important to point out that medical experts all say that
AIDS does not threaten the health of Canadians because it is not
an illness that can be transmitted by casual contact and because
it can be prevented. As things stand now, if there are clinical
signs during medical examination to suggest that a person may
be infected by HIV or even has AIDS, that person is obliged to
undergo a screening test.
[Translation]
If they refuse, they cannot be admitted to Canada because they
did not take the required medical examinations. In this case, the
screening test is intended to determine whether treating the
disease at its present stage would be an excessive burden for our
social or health services. That is why someone with this disease
may be refused admission to Canada; it is not because of the
nature of the disease.
[English]
One might ask why these people should be treated any
differently from those who are afflicted with some other chronic
illness, for example those who suffer from kidney failure or
cancer. These illnesses too can impose demands on our health
care system.
Research on the progression and treatment of AIDS is
ongoing. People diagnosed as sero-positive can now expect to
live much longer than they could even 10 years ago. Even if they
test HIV positive many can continue contributing to Canadian
society for many years.
[Translation]
Furthermore, we must also reconcile our economic and social
interests with our humanitarian commitments. Of course we
must continue to be vigilant, but we must also see that we
maintain Canada's traditions of fairness and compassion. In its
red book, our government committed itself to continuing to
apply a dynamic immigration policy that reconciles
humanitarian considerations with our demographic and
economic needs.
Requiring prospective immigrants to take an HIV screening
test may seem a simple matter at first glance, but that is far from
the case.
(1150)
We cannot and must not consider it apart from the other
problems it raises. This issue must be approached in a much
wider context, in which we take account of developments in the
medical tests used, the concept of excessive burden for Canada's
social and health systems, the nature of the treatment for this
disease, the contribution of sero-positive people to our society
and Canada's long humanitarian tradition. My hon. colleague
will admit that these are important considerations which we
cannot ignore.
[English]
My colleagues and I on this side of the House appreciate the
concerns hon. members have expressed about not imposing an
excessive burden on our country's social and health services. We
must take care to dispassionately analyse and reflect on issues
that are too often fraught with prejudice and discrimination-I
repeat what my hon. colleague on this side of the House
said-and avoid being stampeded into adopting a policy that is
based more on fear than on fact and more on economic
considerations rather than humanitarian concerns, which is not
the Canadian way.
We care about humanity. We have to be cautious when we
adopt certain policies and laws that this aspect is also taken into
consideration. Our laws and institutions must reflect the
progress we have made in terms of our attitudes toward diseases
in general. It is the government's responsibility to show
leadership. We have done that by undertaking a review of the
issue of inadmissibility on medical grounds.
I hope the hon. member will reconsider his motion.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a few things to say after listening to the debate. I am really
curious as to what is the hang-up on the other side of the House
with regard to AIDS testing.
I heard that AIDS testing is undertaken. It is not undertaken
on a consistent basis at all.
I heard that we should be a humanitarian country. I presume
that means allowing immigrants to come into our country that
are HIV infected. I totally disagree with that philosophy and I
am sure most Canadians do as well.
We have to get down to the meat of the issue. The fact is that
AIDS is a serious situation throughout the world. Why introduce
more of that serious situation into Canada when we can prevent
it to some extent by testing for AIDS prior to immigrants
coming into the country? That seems so logical, so simple, it is
actually missing the minds of the Liberals. Sometimes that
happens. Logical, simple, practical things do tend to miss their
support.
7073
I want to support very much my colleague's motion to have
all immigrants tested for the HIV virus. The reasons for this
need are clear. They are not related to phobias. They are not
related to prejudice. They are related to a more important fact
and that is the innocent individual who contracts such a virus
by knowingly allowing that virus to come into the country.
The hard facts are that we live in a world where we are faced
with harsh realities, of which HIV infection and AIDS are two of
the major ones. We especially need to address the question on
how seriously is the government treating the AIDS question in
light of the serious nature of the disease and the great economic
factors associated with it.
We are told we should not support this private member's
motion because the government is going to assess this once
again. It is going to research. It is going to document. It is going
to think about it. We are getting so sick and tired of hearing that
kind of thing from the Liberal government. What we want is
action. This private member's motion will go a long way in
doing something positive for this situation.
(1155)
It just escapes me how the government can take a problem and
defer it to the future by saying: ``We will look at it''. Never in
the history of governance in the country have I heard that so
much as in the last year and few months. It is shameful really.
This is not a time for being passive but for firm action. It is a call
for action that has been shouted from many different sectors
within our society.
It is especially necessary that we look into this matter from
the perspective of those who are dealing with the spread and
consequences of the disease on a daily basis, not from the
perspective of those who come to Ottawa from other parts of the
country and debate and debate and debate. Let us get down to
where the action really is, where the people are being infected by
this virus.
Dr. Don Sutherland in his letter of introduction to recipients
of the ``Quarterly Surveillance Update: AIDS in Canada'' dated
May 2, 1994 states that the statistics continue to emphasize the
point that the AIDS epidemic continues to increase except in
those persons infected through blood and blood products where
the trend is declining. By the end of 1993 it is estimated that
14,000 persons had developed aids in Canada since the onset of
the epidemic.
Dr. Sutherland uses the term epidemic which according to the
dictionary means ``the rapid spreading of a disease''. The
present Liberal government appears to treat the epidemic as a
mere inconvenience which can be overlooked in the area of
immigration. That is really what is happening here.
This is such a serious issue but so many things get cloaked in
this country under immigration. The Reform Party must be
anti-immigration because it is concerned about convicts
coming into the country. It is concerned about testing for AIDS.
In my riding just a short time ago a young lady was raped by
an illegal refugee. She spent six months waiting for the results
of an HIV test while this individual basically ignored the whole
situation. Had we originally tested that particular individual on
coming into the country, she would not have had to go through
that six months of torture, unfortunate as it was.
One does not have to look far to see just how serious an
epidemic in AIDS and HIV infection are considered by
Canadians. In an article from the November 10, 1993 Globe and
Mail, we read about how the disease has taken over the lives of
over 1,000 people a year in Canada. Can members imagine?
That is 1,000 people a year in 1994 when five years ago this was
really hardly even noticed.
Epidemiologists expect an even greater number succumbed to
AIDS in 1993. Dr. Martin Schecter, an epidemiologist at UBC in
my home province is still concerned about the current spread of
the disease. He says: ``The signals we are getting are troubling. I
think HIV is relentlessly spreading''.
With all these kinds of comments coming from the experts in
the field of HIV, I am perplexed why the government would not
say: ``Yes, we know it is a serious problem. Yes, we can stop a
part of the spread of that problem right now by adopting a
private member's motion that sits before the House''.
Because a private members' motion on HIV testing of
immigrants is put to the House by the Reform Party is no real
reason to get into political rhetoric, to turn it down. What has to
be looked at here is how important is that private member's
motion to society in general. Forget the Liberal Party rhetoric.
Dr. Martin Schecter estimated that between 35,000 and
40,000 Canadians have been infected by the AIDS virus since
the disease was first diagnosed. Even more sobering is the
September 11, 1993 article from the Vancouver Sun.
(1200 )
Here is an excerpt from the article: ``AIDS robs Vancouver
men under the age of 75 of more years of potential life than do
cancer, heart disease and accidents, according to a team of
Vancouver researchers. In 1992 alone AIDS cost Vancouver men
about 6,000 years of life, 50 per cent more than each of the other
three major causes of death''. Even more disturbing were the
chilling comments by demographer Robert Hogg who said in his
team's findings: ``If I had told somebody last year, nobody
would have believed me''.
In the minute I have left I want to appeal to this Liberal
government to get away from the rhetoric, get away from the
partisan politics, get away from the study. We will look at this a
little later. Get into the meat of my colleague's private member's
7074
motion. That is what we are here for, the protection of the lives
and the property of Canadian citizens.
If there are immigrants coming into this country with the HIV
virus, then this government has an obligation to test them. It has
an obligation to the citizens of this country. I urge members to
get away from this rhetoric and partisan politics and support my
colleague's bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions) moved that a ways and
means motion relating to the implementation of the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization, laid upon the table
on Thursday, October 20, 1994, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
7074
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to participate in this important debate today.
I can honestly say that during my time in this House and in
other Houses in other jurisdictions social reform policy is one of
the most important issues I have debated. We have known for a
long time that this situation was coming to a head. It is now time,
as is often said, to cross the proverbial bridge. I speak for myself
and for others in saying how pleased we are that we have a
person of the calibre and the social conscience of the minister
heading up the question of social security reform in this country.
Canadians are aware now and have been for some time that
our social security system must be changed. We have come
through a difficult economic period over the past number of
years, fueled by recession and high rates of unemployment.
High unemployment has caused a tremendous strain on Canada
and has presented new and difficult challenges. As I said earlier,
we are fortunate to have a person in place who is strong enough
in his convictions to address these challenges.
We have reached this point only after having consulted
Canadians. As we know last year the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development held hearings across the
country to seek the opinions of those who would be affected by
changes in the social safety net. They were told that there are
disincentives built into the present system and that those who
need help the most simply are not getting the assistance they
require.
All Canadians know at this time that change is inevitable. The
difference with the change that this government will bring about
is the heart and the compassion that will be shown for the
average citizen of Canada. The weakest and those least able to
defend themselves will be protected by any change initiated by
this government. The deficit will not be fought on the backs of
the poor.
(1205)
We have heard a lot over the last few years about the global
village and the new world economy and how we must be trained
to face a changing economic situation around the world. That is
why this is not a hack, slash and burn economic recommendation
but rather a constructive reform which will help Canadians get
back to work.
It is an accepted fact that training and education are the keys
to economic development. We must see that Canadians are
trained in the most efficient and most effective manner. The
money that is to be spent on education must be directed toward
those people who need it the most. The people who come out the
other end of the system as graduates must be trained second to
none because they are competing with people from around the
world and must be prepared to do that.
In the last three years as statistics show, 17 per cent more jobs
were available for university students but there were 19 per cent
fewer jobs for those who did not complete high school. That says
it all: education equals opportunity. We must educate more
people and we must provide better access to education and
training throughout their lives.
We in the part of the country that I come from believe that if
we have trained people we are better able to attract enterprises to
our area of the country because these companies by and large are
looking for a stable, well trained workforce.
At the present time the federal government is providing more
than $8 billion a year to post-secondary education across
Canada. The time has come to sit down and ask ourselves if we
are doing this in the most appropriate manner. Under the current
arrangement if the status quo were continued the cash portion of
the federal contribution to education would decrease
proportionately and could disappear within 10 years. Therefore
we must find ways to help more people finance their higher
education so that they will be prepared to compete on a
worldwide basis.
We believe that investment in learning makes good economic
sense but we must deliver the training to our people in the most
efficient and effective manner possible. We must therefore
ensure that access is available to all young people regardless of
their economic situation.
7075
As I am sure others in this House did last year during the
election campaign, I visited learning institutions in my riding.
Students in my riding indicated they were not satisfied with the
arrangements that are there now for student loans. They want
changes made to the system. Proposals are out now. I say to
those students in my riding and others: Tell us what you think
of them, come forward with different and better ideas and we
will certainly look at them.
The other item in the minister's statement that has caught the
most attention especially in the part of the country I come from
is with respect to the unemployment insurance program. It is a
chilling fact to think that 13 per cent of people have been out of
work for a year or more. That is three times the level of long
term unemployment that this country suffered in 1976. Forty per
cent of claimants have claimed for unemployment benefits at
least three times in the last five years. This indicates that we do
have a problem.
Coming from a region that has a high rate of unemployment I
can assure my fellow members of Parliament that those who are
on the unemployment treadmill are not there by choice. They are
there because of the economy and because the level of training
does not permit them to have jobs year round. We must continue
to look at these people who form our greatest asset in the diverse
regions of this country. We must provide them with the basic
skills necessary to be employable year round.
I believe there is some responsibility for government through
economic or trade policies to see that the opportunities are
afforded to Canadians wherever they live.
I am glad to say that the minister has appointed a working
group to study the effects of unemployment insurance in areas of
the country where seasonal work is the dominant work. In the
province I come from 50 per cent of the workforce has seasonal
jobs. This is part of our history. This is the way tourism,
agriculture and the fishery industry work, on a seasonal basis.
(1210)
The discussion paper released by the Minister of Human
Resources Development asked Canadians how we can address
these problems in a spirit of co-operation and compassion. This
government is not interested in fighting the deficit on the backs
of the poor and the unemployed. Nor is it interested in the
system collapsing, serving no one.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a time of great challenge. It is a
time that challenges government. It challenges members of
Parliament and it challenges the people of the country. We are
not arrogant enough to believe we are the only ones who can
meet these challenges. Canadians know what is in their best
interests. Between now and January the human resources
committee and individual members of Parliament will be
talking to Canadians, seeking their advice.
The discussion paper is a road map from St. John's to
Vancouver. Through our consultations Canadians will tell us
how to get from where we are to where we want to be. This
exercise is about finding better ways of doing things. What
worked fine in the sixties and seventies is no longer working
properly. In fiscal times such as these it is possible to do better
with less. By working with all Canadians this government will
deliver what it promised during the election: a vibrant,
prosperous economy and a country where the needs for social
programs will decline.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Questions or comments?
Debate. Before the hon. member for Malpeque begins I want to
be assured that the time is being split with 10 minutes of speech
and 5 minutes questions or comments.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak on social security reform in
the early stages of this debate.
The document prepared by the Minister of Human Resources
Development will lead to future policy and legislation. I believe
this issue is one of the most important decisions this government
will make in its term in office. I must emphasize that social
security reform cannot be looked upon in isolation of other
programs and other activities like economic development and
tax reform. What will happen in those areas directly relates to
the issues of social policy reform.
As an example of what should not happen I would like to turn
for a moment to look at what happened in the United States
during President Reagan's term. It is dealt with extensively in a
book by John Kenneth Galbraith, A Journey Through Economic
Time. I encourage members to get that book and read it. There
are a lot good comments in it in terms of what not to do in
people's interests in the economy. I quote from Mr. Galbraith in
his book:
For aid to the rich-the large reductions in marginal tax rates in 1981-the
Reagan cover was a declared need to stimulate more energy, initiative and
investment. Effort by the already well endowed was being inhibited because of
the high marginal rates.
He goes on to explain how great tax advantages were given to
the rich by the Reagan administration. On the other hand, for
those less well off financially he says:
Similar and perhaps more successful was the position as regards help to the
poor. Here income, indeed assistance in almost any form, was held to be
damaging to character, initiative and effort and thus to the well-being of the
impoverished. As the rich needed the incentive of more money, so the poor
needed the incentive of less.
7076
This was according to President Reagan's principles of
economic development. That is something we want to avoid and
which I am sure this government wants to avoid in our
discussions leading up to social security reform and to
economic reform in this country.
(1215)
This issue will be of fundamental importance to us in Prince
Edward Island and our ability on Prince Edward Island and in
my riding of Malpeque to produce and prosper. I cannot
emphasize enough the need for people to become informed, to
understand the options and to become involved in offering
alternatives. I encourage people to get the discussion document
put out by the minister's office and to look at the facts, not some
of the criticism or some of the assumptions they may see in the
media.
This proposal on social security reform will affect my
province of Prince Edward Island, either positively or
negatively, probably more than any other province given the
structure of our economy. It is my hope that everyone thinks
through the implications on an individual basis, on a labour
basis, on an employer basis, how it affects students and how it
affects the economy as a whole.
With the foregoing in mind, I held a public meeting in my
riding to try and lay out those facts in as straightforward a way
as I could. I will give the results of that meeting in a moment. I
did that because I felt that communities and interest groups must
prepare themselves for the standing committee that is to follow
and hear their points of view in a concrete, constructive way.
As I said at the beginning of that meeting, I want to be very
clear. Changes are going to be made. For us to argue to maintain
the status quo or the system exactly as it is is not even in the
cards. It is not a winnable argument. We have to understand that.
In understanding that we have to be a part of the process; we
have to become involved as communities and as people within
communities in a very constructive way.
I want to relate some of the points I raised at the public
meeting. Some of them are critical of our position. We accept
that criticism because out of constructive criticism will come
good debate and at the end of the day will come better solutions.
I encouraged public participation in the meeting. It was very
high and quite vocal. My constituents realize that changes are
needed. However, they feel that at the moment the changes are
directed solely at one group of people, the less wealthy in
society. Let me expand on what my constituents told me at that
meeting.
First, the government continues to say that too much is spent
on social programs and cuts are needed, yet no one wants to
admit that we in Canada do not have a fair taxation system. It is
the middle class that pays 58 per cent of all taxes, while
businesses and corporations pay less than 15 per cent.
Second, they said there exist massive tax loopholes that allow
corporations and wealthy individuals of Canada to escape
paying their fair share. At least that is the perception. These
loopholes are subsidies and tax expenditures, thus costing the
government a loss of revenues.
Third, they indicated that the government is looking at social
reform in a one dimensional manner. Before programs are cut
the government must take action in reforming taxation. The
deficit cannot be put solely on the backs of the middle class and
the less wealthy. From my constituents' point of view that
relates to the overall thrust of social security reform.
I do not accept that criticism in its entirety. We are intending
as a government to look at tax reform and other areas as well and
we must as we go down this road.
There was a considerable amount of discussion on education.
A lot of concern was raised by students in terms of when they are
finished university if the new approach is taken what kind of
debt loads will they face. On that point we have a lot more work
to do in the area of education.
(1220)
On UI, people at the meeting said they believe the changes to
UI will have the greatest negative impact. The impact will be
greater in Prince Edward Island and the maritimes as a whole
than in other areas of the country because of our seasonal
industries.
The two leading industries in P.E.I. are agriculture and
tourism. These two industries rely heavily on seasonal workers.
Without the availability of seasonal help the employers within
these industries will be lost in terms of operating their
businesses. Seasonal workers play a tremendous part in
allowing whole industries to be profitable. As my colleague
from Hillsborough said a minute ago, we are pleased the
Minister of Human Resources Development has now appointed
a special committee to look at seasonal industries in light of the
impending changes relative to UI.
If these changes are taken without careful consideration all
that is simply going to occur is fewer people on UI and more on
welfare, once again transferring the deficit on to the backs of
poorer provinces. We cannot allow that to happen under these
changes.
In the social security reform paper job training and retraining
are talked about extensively. My constituents feel that skills
retraining is a necessity however, it is only worthwhile if jobs
exist in the sector they are being trained in. For example, there is
little use training an out of place worker skilled in electronics if
there exists a surplus of electricians. Before job training occurs
we need to know in what areas there are going to be jobs. I want
to re-emphasize the need to work in economic areas to try and
ensure that the jobs will be there once people are trained.
7077
Some of my constituents believe that the reform paper is
really a plan to cut the deficit, a plan that puts our deficit on
the backs of those who can least afford it. We cannot lose sight
that Canada is a country which is built on the ideals of having
a social program for all its citizens, for all to have a level
playing field to succeed. I certainly countered that argument
because the position of the discussion paper and other measures
we are taking is to recognize that changes need to be made and
they must be done in a very constructive way to see that
ordinary people's needs are met.
I had an interesting experience the weekend before last when I
was the only MP who attended a meeting of the Council of
Canadians. At that meeting all MPs who sit in this House,
particularly those on my side of the House, were under attack
because of the social security reform. I stood at that meeting and
asked those people how many of them had talked to us as MPs
and very few raised their hands. That is what this debate is all
about. It does no good for those groups out there that are
attacking our discussion paper to talk to themselves. They have
to get out to these hearings and put forward alternate proposals
in a very constructive way. In that way we will listen.
In closing I want to quote from the Prime Minister's speech in
Fredericton in which he indicated where we are really going on
this issue: ``We need a national debate on our options. We are
looking for good ideas from the provinces, the private sector, the
trade union movement and individual Canadians. When new
legislation is introduced next year it will reflect what we have
learned during that consultation process''.
What is important is this consultation, this debate, so that at
the end of the day we come up with a better social safety net than
we currently have.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member
for Malpeque who was referring to critics he heard in his riding.
Indeed, Prince Edward Island will be very affected by this social
security reform, as it has already been by UI cuts. In fact, the
same situation occurred in Quebec, and more particularly in my
riding.
I am pleased that the hon. member is trying to find other ways
to finance social security in Canada, particularly from a taxation
point of view. I suggest he take a look at tax havens, which
should be eliminated. As well, family trusts must be controlled.
This is the only way to finance social programs. Our social
programs must not be destroyed. It took a long time to build a
social safety net in Canada; we must improve it, not eliminate it.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question
and would agree. We have certainly talked about those very
issues in the discussion on this side of the House within our
party and within our caucus. We have to look at all the areas of
taxation. We are concerned and we must be assured that there is
some balance. A tax advantage to the wealthy is in effect a
subsidy to the wealthy. I agree with that. I think there has to be
balance. We have to look at the subsidies to the wealthy that are
allowed by tax advantages. On the other side we have to ensure
that there is a sound social safety net for citizens across Canada.
We can take pride in what Canada has put in place to date but
we recognize that now it needs to be changed. We are going to
look at that in a comprehensive way. At the end of the day I hope
we will all be better off as Canadians.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always interesting to hear speeches by these Liberals who have
converted to the Reform point of view that there have to be
changes. It is interesting that none of these things came out
during the last election.
The member speaks about going to his constituents and also
going to the Council of Canadians and asking how many have
talked to MPs. If they had spoken to the Liberals during the last
election they would not have been hearing the same thing that
the member was talking about to his constituents at this meeting
he was reporting on.
The Reform Party by contrast has consistently stipulated that
there must be protection for the disadvantaged in our society and
the only way we can do it is to make sure that the pie is carved up
in their favour.
Does the member agree that the outdated concept of
universality that was touted consistently by the Liberals in the
election is now dead? Or does he believe, as the member sitting
behind him seemed to believe in debate the other day, that it is
universality if necessary but not necessarily universality?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, no, I certainly do not believe that
universality is outdated. Universality is important especially in
a caring, sharing nation like Canada.
It is too bad the member had not been in my riding during the
last election. I spoke extensively in my riding during the
campaign about the importance of protecting and enhancing the
abilities of the disadvantaged, the difficulties we have in some
areas where we need regional development programs to better
those programs through changes in taxation policies and
through other reforms the government may undertake.
7078
We cannot look at each particular reform in isolation. The
government is looking at it in many areas. It is looking at
reform in terms of social security reform and economic reform.
The government is willing to stand up and lead the way. That
is what I believe we are doing.
(1230)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Drummond. I would ask the hon. member to
give me confirmation that Bloc Quebecois members will split
their time.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
indeed share the allotted time with my colleague.
I am pleased to inform the House of the reactions and
comments following the release of the details of the social
program reform announced by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
First, I think this reform should be named more accurately.
Indeed, the minister's initiative is not a reform of our social
program system but, rather, an exercise which is part of an
operation to cut into the budgets allocated for social programs.
Ultimately, this exercise will result in cuts of $15 billion over a
period of five years.
The paper released by the minister is very clear on this, at
page 23, where it says: ``Reform of social security cannot be
contemplated in isolation from the fiscal realities facing
governments in Canada''. Three pages further, the document
provides more details on the real intentions of this government:
``A social security system that is financially unsustainable is a
dead end''. The minister can certainly not be accused of lacking
in imagination; he wants to make profitable a social system
whose raison d'être is to help those who are in need of
assistance.
What we have before us is not an initiative to help needy
Canadians and Quebecers. Nor is it one which will provide them
with some security. It is not designed to make the world a better
place for everyone. On the contrary, this is an initiative from a
government which wants to cut its spending and reduce its
deficit at the expense of the poorest ones in our society. In fact,
this reform is a tool which the government will use to cut its
expenditures and put its finances in order.
There is another purpose for this reform and it is to centralize
powers in Ottawa. This is every federalist's dream. So, this
reform will be a very useful tool indeed. Most of the options
proposed in this reform tend toward centralization. All in all, the
government's two main objectives are very clear: to drastically
reduce its social spending in order to put public finances in
order, and with what is left, to try again to centralize the powers
in Ottawa, at least in the jurisdictions it sees fit, notwithstanding
the provisions of the Constitution Act of Canada and the
priorities of either Quebec or the other provinces.
Quebec and Canadian taxpayers give the federal government
large sums of money, a portion of which is intended for health
care and education pursuant to the 1977 agreement. The problem
is that the federal government prefers to use this money not for
its specified purposes but to reduce the deficit. The federal
government must realize that by increasing the tax burden of
Quebec and all the other provinces, it directly affects the whole
social system the Quebec and Canadian people rely on. It is
estimated that the federal government has saved $22 billion
since it started to cut spending and to freeze transfer payments.
The federal government has squeezed Quebecers and all
Canadians to the tune of $22 billion.
Despite higher taxes, federal contributions to the health and
welfare program via transfer payments have so drastically
decreased that the basic principles of the health and welfare
system are being questioned and jeopardized.
This reform confirms the federal government's intention to
continue cutting transfer payments. Now, after reducing health
transfer payments, the federal government is attacking
education transfer payments with the reform proposed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
Let us briefly review the implications of this reform for the
education sector. The reform provides for the total elimination
of education transfer payments for post-secondary education,
meaning that the provinces will get, at the very least, $2.6
billion less than before.
(1235)
This decision will have two consequences. First, the federal
government will again reduce its deficit on the back of the
provinces by substantially raising their fiscal burden. Second,
this loss of revenues will force provinces and universities to
contribute more to the funding of the education system. The rest
is easy to guess: education costs and tuition fees will have to be
higher and students will end up being the ones to pay for that by
contracting more loans.
For Quebec alone, this loss of revenues will reach $300
million a year; that is, $300 million Quebec students will have to
pay themselves because tuition fees will increase two-fold.
While reaffirming the importance of university training, the
federal government submits a proposal that restricts access to
post-secondary education by increasing student indebtedness.
This means that the proposed reform reduces the accessibility of
post-secondary education for students whose financial means
are limited.
We have been fighting for at least 20 years in Quebec to
democratize access to post-secondary education and now the
federal government is trying to undo what we have done. The
government even goes beyond that by proposing dangerous and
ridiculous ideas. First of all, it proposes to establish a central-
7079
ized loan program in Ottawa. The game is easy to understand:
first the federal government deprives the provinces of the
funding it had promised them and lets them deal with their
financial problems on their own, then it takes sole responsibility
for the student loan program and wants to standardize it.
Second, it goes as far as to propose that students use their RRSPs
to finance their education. Mr. Speaker, do you know many
students who have more than $25,000 in RRSPs? Personally, I
do not know any.
This government who promised jobs to everybody, who talked
about jobs, jobs, jobs for months, had a good opportunity to put
in place a structure that would focus on job creation. Yet, we do
not see any employment policy in this reform, any incentive to
create jobs. While there is a consensus in Quebec and in the
other provinces regarding the urgent need for a joint action plan
for job creation, the Liberal government tables a discussion
paper whose main objective is to cut social programs by several
billion dollars annually.
The green paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources
Development first gives us an inventory of unemployment
insurance, training and welfare programs and then tells us how
to weaken them even further. To deal with structural
unemployment related to inadequate manpower training, the
federal government should have started by letting Quebec set up
a sensible manpower training system. This is one of Quebec's
traditional demands, one on which a consensus was reached long
ago by employers, unions and politicians. It is truly unfortunate
that this government failed to use this opportunity to get rid of a
lot of the costly overlap produced by a federal system that is in
very poor shape.
The duplication and administrative overlap that exist between
the Government of Quebec and the federal government are
partly responsible for the disastrous political and economical
situation facing Quebecers and Canadians every day. The
federal government, which insists on pushing its centralist
approach, is largely responsible for the costly and inefficient
proliferation of duplication and administrative overlap between
both levels of government. Through massive use of its spending
powers, the federal government is gradually and deliberately
encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction over health care, while
ignoring what has already been done by the Government of
Quebec.
According to a study introduced in 1991 by the federal
Treasury Board, 45 per cent of the programs of departments,
Crown corporations and federal agencies, representing a total of
$40 billion in spending annually, were introduced although
similar measures had already been initiated by provincial
governments. This wasteful use of financial resources caused by
duplication and administrative overlap between Ottawa and the
provinces, is to us a clear indication that the disastrous state of
public finances and the deteriorating competitive position of the
Canadian economy are a direct result of the crisis in Canada's
political structures. This wasteful spending must stop. Quebec
has always demanded that the federal government stop
encroaching on its jurisdictions.
(1240)
Recently, Quebec again asked the federal government to stop
interfering in manpower and occupational training, which cost
Quebec taxpayers $250 million annually. Instead of realizing
this and withdrawing from this area, the federal government has
decided to use this reform to interfere on an even broader scale
and make this administrative mess even more costly.
In this area as in so many others, the federal government
should stop being stubborn and start acting in the interest of
efficiency and effectiveness. Our level of indebtedness, the
failure of the present policies as illustrated by the
unemployment rates, and the number of people on welfare do
not permit us to allow this wasteful overlapping of jurisdictions
to continue only to satisfy the federal government's desire to
control everything.
Today, because of overlapping, we are unable to implement
efficient programs geared to social and economic needs.
Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that if the federal
government was really concerned about the welfare of
Quebecers and Canadians, it would cancel its ill-conceived
reform and concentrate instead on dealing with the issue of
overlapping. In so doing it would realize that, in the area of
social services, most stakeholders come under provincial
jurisdiction, and that the federal government has no business
getting involved. Quebec and the provinces are already there
and in spite of under-funding, are more successful than the
federal government.
Far from trying to deal with these cases of counterproductive
overlapping, with its ill-conceived reform, the federal
government is creating more overlapping by proposing to
regroup under one roof all manpower programs managed by
various levels of government.
It goes without saying that, as opposition health critic, I am
looking at the health aspects of this ill-conceived reform.
We of the Official Opposition believe in maintaining the five
major principles which are universality, comprehensiveness,
accessibility, portability and public management. However,
what we are decrying is the fact that the federal government still
insists on imposing these principles while at the same time
cutting funding, especially since these cuts which, on many
occasions, the Quebec government has called unacceptable and
inconsistent, have not been followed by a drop in Ottawa's
meddling. It is sticking steadfastly to its national standards and
continues to intervene in areas where Quebec and the provinces
7080
have jurisdiction, by creating parallel programs and therefore
more problems of overlapping.
The link between poverty and health has been clearly
demonstrated by several studies. Low-income people are more
often sick, consume more drugs and require more care. We know
that in the last few years poverty among young people has
increased dramatically. Not only will these children cost more in
health care, they will have learning disabilities and will be twice
as likely to drop out of school as their wealthier friends.
In the end, these children will depend on welfare instead of
contributing actively to the development of our society. To
better control the general state of health of the population in
Quebec and Canada, and therefore reduce health costs, we must
start by fighting poverty to the finish. What does the federal
government propose in this regard? I can see nothing. The
reform even proposes to reduce family benefits of low-income
families. This reform will only aggravate a situation already
tragic for the over 1.2 million children in Quebec and Canada
who live in poverty.
By refusing to acknowledge the link between poverty and
health problems, the federal government is jeopardizing the
effectiveness of our system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I am sorry
to have to interrupt the hon. member, but her 10 minutes are
certainly over. I will nevertheless take the liberty of asking our
colleagues whether we could allow the hon. member for
Drummond to conclude her remarks. We would forgo the
five-minute question and comment period. Does the House
agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Picard: Mr. Speaker, I had only one more paragraph.
On behalf of the people, the neediest and the middle class, we
reject the proposal of the Minister of Human Resources
Development and we urge the government to come up with real
measures, measures to create jobs.
(1245)
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity today to participate in this debate on
the proposed reform of social security programs put forth by the
minister of social program cuts.
Let me tell you right away that this long-awaited reform
proposal finally laid before us in a discussion paper will not be
translated into actual legislation before next fall at the earliest,
and perhaps not before 1996, as Chantal Hébert indicated in La
Presse on October 5.
This use of public consultation to forestall objections by the
provinces and pressure groups gives credence to the contention
that this government intends once again to go it alone,
by-passing the provinces as it recently did at the National
Forum on Health.
It is always the same thing. ``This recipe for income security
to reform sounds like one Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney or Joe
Clark would have cooked up'', writes Chantal Hébert.
The minister's document presents this reform proposal as a
magic recipe to boost the economy as well as job creation. Make
no mistake, the primary objective of the federal government is
to make cuts in social programs to bring the deficit and the
national debt down.
References made to compassion and fairness in this document
have a rather conservative flavour to them, while the real face of
this reform is rather hideous. Especially when we already know
that, as indicated in a secret document submitted to Cabinet and
published by the Toronto Star on October 5, this government
plans to make another $7.5 billion in cuts over five years on top
of the $7.5 billion announced in the last budget. So much for
compassion!
On the subjects of job creation and unemployment insurance,
I will only touch on a few aspects of the proposal dealing with
job creation and changes to the Unemployment Insurance
Program.
The proposals made in this document rest, in fact, on a
misdiagnosis of the current situation. The problem facing
Canada and Quebec is job scarcity. The reform proposal deals
exclusively with employability, while what we really need is a
real job creation policy.
A group of professors of social law at the University of
Quebec in Montreal wrote recently: ``They talk about
employability, adapting individuals to the labour market and
training people for jobs that do not exist, instead of adopting a
real job-creation policy''. The group adds: ``It is incorrect to
postulate that the unemployment problem is due to individuals
not being adapted to the market, as though they were
merchandise [-]To put people back to work, they first need
something more than insecure, underpaid jobs''.
As for the employment situation, the employment/population
ratio is the most reliable indicator of the actual employment
situation. In Quebec, this ratio is now 54.7 per cent, while in
April 1990, just before the last recession began, it was around
58.6 per cent. This statistic shows that we are still very far from
the pre-recession employment level and that the employment
recovery is very slow.
Considering population growth, 800,000 jobs would have to
be created in Canada, more than 200,000 of them in Quebec
alone, to return to the level of April 1990; at the present rate of
job creation, assuming that there will be no slowdown before the
end of 1995, it will take at least three years to return to the
pre-recession level.
7081
This shows how anemic the recovery that the federal
government tells us about is. In fact, this recovery is due more
to increased productivity than to increased employment.
Statistics for September 1994 show that following a large rise
in the previous month, unemployment stabilized in Quebec at
12.2 per cent, while in Ontario it continued to fall, reaching 9.2
per cent.
In particular, employment in the Montreal market is growing
a little more slowly than in the first quarter of 1994. The annual
rate of growth in the metropolitan area went from 4.8 to 2.6 per
cent. Moreover, Montreal continues to lag behind the rest of the
country and has not recovered one fifth of the jobs lost during
the recession. This is taken from L'économie de Montréal for the
second quarter of 1994.
The jobless rate for residents of the City of Montreal is three
points higher than for the metropolitan Montreal census area.
(1250)
As for the proposed reform recommendations, one of the
options favoured by the government is to introduce a second
class of unemployed for those with precarious jobs. We know
full well that such jobs are mostly held by young people, women
and artists. These second-class unemployed people would be
subject to ``compulsory'' employability measures and forced to
participate in community work. They would also have to pay
higher premiums in return for lower benefits.
Proposing such measures takes a certain amount of cynicism,
as they clearly show that this government sees the unemployed
as lazy people-beer drinkers, as the Prime Minister
said-whom a very paternalistic government must force to take
the necessary steps to find jobs.
We can only conclude that the federal government has no
job-creation policy as we know full well that coercive measures
do not generate employment. Yet, the term ``employment'' can
be found throughout the discussion paper. They even talk about
employment insurance, which is misleading, as it would be
more accurate to refer to poverty insurance or social insecurity
reform.
By attempting to reduce the debt through arbitrary cuts in
social programs, the government will only manage to increase
the number of welfare recipients.
The first thing this government should do about
unemployment is to allow interested provinces to implement a
coherent manpower training program, as it just did in the case of
Quebec's Mohawks. ``This is truly a double standard'', said
Quebec's employment minister, Mrs. Louise Harel, to the daily
Le Devoir, adding that, from the federal government's
perspective, what is good for the Mohawks is bad for Quebecers.
But let us go back to that system with two types of
unemployed workers: those who hold precarious jobs and those
have seasonal jobs. Bureaucrats use a very politically correct
expression in reference to these people, calling them frequent
claimants.
One of the most disturbing aspects of these recommendations
is that women would be the first to be affected, given the family
income criteria.
``Taking the family income into account transforms the UI
program into a more selective program, somewhat like the
social assistance program. [-]Such a measure would put an end
to the universality of the right to work. Once again, women are
the ones who will be affected'', added the UQUAM task force.
Several other questions remain unanswered. For example,
what does the reform recommend for workers aged 50 and over?
These are people who have held the same job for 20 to 25 years.
Training? Retraining for a year or two and for non-existent
jobs? What will happen to the very limited Program for Older
Worker Adjustment, POWA, which is unfair to Montreal
workers precisely because of the federal criteria being applied?
All this, finally, to follow the finance minister's orders:
cutting assistance to the poor rather than taxing the rich. Thus,
new and even more arbitrary cuts will be hardly surprising, since
the government wants to reduce its deficit by $25 billion by
1997.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tries to
sound compassionate and alarmist when insinuating that:
if we do not carry out this reform-that is, if we do not cut social
programs-the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the
international financial establishment could do it in our place.
There are other ways to reduce the deficit and to put into place
a real job creation policy, and we have indicated some of these to
the government. Cutting social programs will certainly not rid
us of the unemployment plague.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the hon. member's comments with some concern. It seems to
me he was very negative in his references to the government and
made it seem as though one of our initiatives is a way of getting
even with the unemployed because we feel they are lazy.
He also said that with our social security reform, we were
taxing the poor. It is of course not the first time that comments
from the Bloc Quebecois are rather negative and do not
represent the real situation.
Where did the hon. member get his information, and could he
quote his sources?
(1255)
Mr. Daviault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. In Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate, released last
week by the Minister of Finance, the minister said that major
structural changes had also been made in the Unemployment
7082
Insurance Program, in this budget. However, these changes are
only a first step. The document entitled Improving Social
Security in Canada contains proposals that would further
change the structure of various programs and lead to major
additional spending cuts, the objective being two-fold: to
reduce premiums and reinforce job development services.
Of course, it is the government's job to be positive about these
proposals. There are others who question the consistency of the
Liberal government. For instance, today we read in The Citizen,
in an analysis by Mark Kennedy, and I will quote the passage in
English:
[English]
In 1990 the Mulroney government changed the
unemployment insurance program so that people had to work
longer to qualify for UI and if they did their benefits expired
sooner. The Liberal report at that time said the measure had led
to dramatic increases in the number of people being forced from
UI to welfare. The party urged the government to rescind the
change.
In 1990 the Mulroney government froze transfer payments to
provinces for health care and post-secondary education. The
Liberal report condemned the action. In opposition the Liberals
said funding limits for welfare programs would just hurt those
who had nowhere else to turn. In government the Liberals have
not repealed the Tories' funding formula. Rather, they want a
new formula that means even less federal spending on basic
welfare.
In opposition the Liberals said a freeze on health care funding
runs counter to the fight against child poverty. In government
the Liberals have not ended the freeze and the Prime Minister
warned last week that health care funding will need to be cut or
medicare will be destroyed.
In opposition the Liberals said cuts in federal support for
post-secondary education have led to higher costs for education
which include higher tuition fees and that led to higher
unemployment for youth.
[Translation]
In government, they do the same thing.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would appreciate it if my colleague from Ahuntsic could help
me reassure senior citizens, especially those living alone.
In the town of East Broughton, in my riding, there is a lady
called Mrs. Lessard, who calls me just about every week in need
of reassurance. Again last Friday, she called my office to tell me
that she could hardly make ends meet. She reminded me once
more that the Liberal government had been elected on the
promise to get rid of the GST. She told me that she had
postponed filling up her oil tank in the hope that the GST would
disappear before winter. But she realized that she could wait no
longer and had to have her tank filled; and, of course, she had to
pay the infamous GST plus the QST.
Once again, I would ask the hon. member for Ahuntsic to help
me make senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel more
secure.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask the member
for Ahuntsic to please give a short answer.
Mr. Daviault: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to make
senior citizens feel more secure. But this measure was taken on
the spur of the moment, without any strategy. As mentioned in
the UQAM's document, the government wants us to believe that
we are being consulted. First, it threatens us with cuts, no matter
what the consultations result in. Then, it fails to link its reform
with other issues such as Old Age Security, the national health
policy, or a concrete and comprehensive reform of the tax
system, which are all important points. The government is only
looking at the problem from a cost standpoint without giving
itself the means to solve it through taxation. It is only going to
review the tax system six months down the road.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate regarding the
future of Canada's social services.
(1300 )
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources
Development for his commitment to ensure that all Canadians
can participate in this consultation process. The result will be a
fundamental change in our social services. The reason for this
change is evident. As the Prime Minister has already said, the
status quo is not an option.
It has been Liberals who have responded to previous needs for
social service programs and put into place the social services
that we have today. Liberal governments of the past have
introduced among other programs old age pensions,
unemployment insurance, the Canada pension plan and student
loans.
This Liberal government now calls upon Canadians to accept
the challenge to redefine priorities, to identify what is important
and to create a new social policy for the next century. This
challenge is not about change for the sake of change. It is the
government's response to Canadians who have demanded
changes in the way that our social system operates now. It is a
response to a changing society. We have been asked to do this by
Canadians.
The programs that exist today were created for different
circumstances and under different times. The recession and
restructuring felt deeply by millions of Canadians make what we
are setting out to do not only urgent but fundamental for our
survival as a nation.
7083
Yesterday's solutions are not going to answer today's
problems. New solutions are necessary and we are going to
provide those solutions for Canadians.
The task is enormous, make no mistake. We are asking
Canadians to redefine what is fundamental to many. With this
reform we are going to change everything from unemployment
insurance to social welfare. The task is not government's alone,
however. All Canadians have been asked to participate and
support this effort to provide better service.
The need for reform is evident and clear. We are taking a
responsible approach to a difficult agenda. It is easy to simply
cry for cuts and reductions. What lies before us is a task of
nation building. We are participating in a historic opportunity to
reshape our social security programs. The end result should
ensure that the world will again look to Canada as a nation that
cares for its own and has rebuilt its social programs to respond to
our needs now.
This exercise is more than deficit reduction. Obviously we
would not be experiencing this sense of urgency without the
need to control our debt and deficit. More important however,
we are responding to programs which no longer reflect the
changing needs of a changing society. Quite evidently the status
quo, as the Prime Minister has said, can no longer be accepted.
My constituents know that we are facing serious decisions.
They want our government to act. They also want to participate
in a process which makes them a part of the solution. They want
us together to confront poverty, to ensure that our children are
able to enjoy the best post-secondary education and they want to
be protected from unforeseen circumstances. While they want
government to provide these services, they know we no longer
are able to afford the services of the past, especially services
which are unable to respond to current needs.
The standard of living in Guelph-Wellington is very good.
Despite a lower than average unemployment rate, we still have
incidents of child poverty; there are a number of seasonal
workers more affected by economic downturns than most of us;
we have seniors and students who fear for their future; and the
United Way and other agencies are busy with demands for their
services. Guelph-Wellington like all of Canada has felt the
ravages of the recession. We have individuals who relied on and
continue to need the kinds of social services that we are being
asked to improve.
What the people of Guelph-Wellington have always
demanded from government is quality. They want their money
to be well spent, they want value and they demand excellence.
They want a social service network that protects those most in
need, allows for flexibility, encourages growth in the human
spirit and above all assists in job creation and economic
renewal, for that truly is the way to success. They do not want
people to be dependent but rather they encourage independence.
They want to help build and encourage. They no longer want,
nor will they accept the status quo.
(1305)
My constituents know that many of the proposals in the green
book are new and daring but they want to take the chance in
order to effect change. I have discussed for example the
proposals regarding income contingent repayment loans for
students with the president and the students of the University of
Guelph. They know there are risks in this proposal but they want
the freedom to better plan their post-secondary education. They
want to take a more active role in what affects them.
The University of Guelph welcomes new innovations and
ideas. The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome the
opportunity to effect change in post-secondary education and
other programs. They want to share responsibility with this
government. They want programs which will be fair and will
benefit all Canadians fairly.
We must address fundamental and very real issues in the next
few months. Above all we are not only talking about programs,
we are addressing real people with real needs. We are talking to
the seasonal worker who in his or her construction trade faces a
two year waiting list for employment after they have completed
a job. We are talking about the teenager in Erin, Ontario who is
hoping to attend university. This reform is about the senior in
Guelph and the newborn in Puslinch.
We are going to talk about new ways to help those who are
struggling to make ends meet. We are going to find new ways to
assist Canadians who today have no idea that they will need
social assistance in the future, but because of some unfortunate
circumstance they will find themselves seeking help at some
point in their life.
The majority of people in my riding voted Liberal because
they trust a Liberal government. They know that Liberals have
in the past responded to similar difficult situations. They want
reductions in government spending to be sensible and
reasonable. They want a responsible approach to social service
renewal and they want real consultation.
This process will result in a new and better way to provide
social services. It will end the duplication of services and build
on new partnerships.
The people of Guelph-Wellington no longer want to know
who is to blame for the past. They want to know who to turn to
for their future. They want decision making which will be for
their benefit and for the benefit of all Canadians. They want to
join our government in renewal. They want jobs, security and
education for their children and for themselves and assistance
for the unemployed. They want welfare that teaches, encourages
and trains for new skills rather than a government handout that
demeans and discourages. They want literacy, employment
opportunity and the dignity of work that our Prime Minister is
quick to always encourage. They want to participate in nation
building, not division.
7084
We are responding to the demands of our history. Last fall
the Liberals asked Canadians to help create opportunity. This
fall we are asking them to seize that opportunity and build a
better Canada. The people of Guelph-Wellington are ready to
answer that call. Together we will build a Canada that will
remain the best country in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the member for
Guelph-Wellington said about the reform of social security in
Canada.
(1310)
Last weekend, I spent several hours meeting groups of my
constituents in Frontenac and when they were told that the
country is on the brink of bankruptcy, with an accumulated
deficit of $550 billion, some of them reminded us that this
monstrous debt was created not by the Conservatives but by the
Liberals, a government to which the present Prime Minister has
belonged practically since his youth.
Remember that this $550-billion debt was not created
overnight. The deficits began to pile up in the early 1970s, in the
Trudeau era, and now a real climate of fear is being created
throughout the land; people are almost made to feel guilty for
collecting an allowance for their children or an old age pension
or a welfare cheque. Some feel guilty, as though they were
cheating the country, but they are not.
Most of these social measures were brought in by a Liberal
government and now it will cost a fortune in advertising and
cross-Canada tours to try to make the electorate swallow the
pill. I asked my constituents on the weekend what they proposed
to reduce this famous deficit. Since it was in the news, they said
why not cut the $2 million for the Robin Hood, William Tell and
Top Gun exercises.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me that $2 million is a
drop in the bucket. Yes, a little snow does not stop a locomotive,
but billions and billions of flakes of snow will stop the whole
train. You see, $2 million are being spent so that some sixty of
our soldiers can go and have fun in Florida.
Two weeks ago, we were told that $2 million a year were spent
on the restaurant here on the sixth floor while senators and MPs
invited their constituents and friends for lunch and forgot to pay
before leaving. Two million a year; it is a real disgrace! It is
really shameful, and then we hear that politicians are unpopular.
With things like that, the voters in Frontenac are right to
question politicians' good will.
I wonder if the member for Guelph-Wellington could give us
her opinion, her own, not her government's which I already
know, but her own opinion on tax shelters or family trusts which
contain billions of dollars that could be collected from wealthy
individuals.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I could go on forever on
this one. To the hon. member for Frontenac, you are quite right,
a Liberal government was responsible for many programs that
have helped this community-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members should be sure
they direct their comments through the Chair and not directly to
one another.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting started.
There is no doubt a Liberal government has been responsible for
many of the innovative and new reforms that have made Canada
what it is today, clearly the best country in the world rated for
the second time. Let us put that on record.
It is important to understand that all of the benefits brought in
by a Liberal government were brought in for the country as a
whole, including Quebec. It is very important for that member to
understand that we look after all Canadians.
The member for Frontenac talks about our growing the debt. I
wish to inform him that to begin with some of the debt was
caused by the Liberal government. Then we had the new regime,
the Tories, and a small debt grew into a huge debt.
(1315)
The member for Frontenac says that we are on the verge of
bankruptcy. I wish to be very clear on that. We are not on the
verge of bankruptcy. That is clearly a tactic to entice Quebec
people to buy into that notion. As we know from the recent
election many Quebec people do not buy into that sort of
thinking or mindset. We know it is not true.
We are however at a crossroads. Clearly the government is
going to act on reforming social programs. I draw the attention
of the hon. member to the Financial Post of today that states
clearly Canadians are in support of this reformation. We are
catching up to what all Canadians want, Quebec included.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in support of change. Although I have not
entirely determined my position on all the proposals contained
in the government's discussion paper ``Improving Social
Security in Canada'', I am carefully considering the various
options. Frankly I am waiting for my constituents to digest these
ideas and tell me what they think.
However I am certain of my support for the process the
discussion paper initiates. It is a process of change. The
government is once again showing its commitment to
innovation and complete consultation with Canadians in an open
and constructive manner.
7085
The change I speak of is necessary because in Canada we
have a social security system that is simply not working
properly. Our social programs no longer function adequately,
often neglecting those people who need help. I need only cite
recent statistics on child poverty to prove the point.
Clearly there are some people caught in the revolving door of
welfare who are otherwise capable and willing to work. That is a
problem. It hurts the system and impedes our ability to deliver
efficient programs. We must improve the system. We must bring
about change.
When the Minister of Human Resources Development
released his discussion paper a short while ago, immediately we
listened to the barrage of criticism from across the House and
complaints from interest groups across the country.
I could not be happier. In my mind the discussion paper is a
total success. That is exactly what a discussion paper is
supposed to do: to get Canadians talking about our social
security system. Whether the comments are positive or negative
Canadians have started the debate on social policy. That is
exactly our intention. It is debate by Canadians that will inspire
the creative ideas we need to improve our social security
programs.
I remind members across the floor that the discussion paper is
not government policy but rather a framework of proposals to
work toward solutions. The debate will continue. The
government is listening to the condemnations from political
camps and special interest lobbies. Lo and behold the silent
majority speaks. Canadians were recently solicited for their
opinions. Scientific sources tell us the strong majority of
Canadians think the social security system needs change.
That is one reason I am a member of this majority
government. We promised change. We were elected to a
majority for change and now we are delivering on change.
Furthermore an overwhelming majority of people in the country
apparently think specific programs like unemployment
insurance and welfare desperately need change. I reiterate that I
stand in support of change.
I also support the nation's exemplary tradition of helping our
poor, our disadvantaged and our unfortunate. However I am
concerned that what began as a system of assistance for the poor,
the unemployed and disadvantaged has turned into a social trap.
The system now applies social assistance inappropriately, thus
missing the target and costing far too much in the process.
Canada's social security system has drifted from its original
intent. That is why we are here re-examining the issue with the
objective of improving it.
(1320 )
I cannot speak for my colleagues but I have received several
letters from people who are upset. They say that we are unfairly
subsidizing the social security system and that we must
seriously address those concerns.
I am not blaming the victims in our society. I want a social
security system that will protect and help victims of misfortune.
If we do not improve the system we will not be able to help those
people in the future. We also have to face financial realities.
When social programs are unfairly applied those truly in need
are the people who suffer.
I would like to examine a couple of specific ideas if I could.
One is the concept of getting people back to work. The other is
the essence that in the priority of the government jobs for
Canadians will solve a lot of our social security problems.
There is a deficiency with programs such as welfare and
unemployment insurance. For example it often makes more
sense to remain on the welfare roll rather than seek employment
because sometimes welfare benefits pay better than low end
jobs. There is no incentive for people to enter the workforce and
advance careers into better paying jobs. The problem is well
documented.
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect we should develop
policy that motivates people on welfare to enter the workforce.
By encouraging Canadians to find jobs we are also helping
individuals gain the dignity we all desire.
The proposal of supplementing wages with social assistance
until people rise above the poverty line while remaining in the
workforce is a commendable idea. We must also develop
effective job training programs so that people can acquire the
skills they need to excel in the workforce.
Social programs must involve the availability of education.
We must explore policy options that direct federal funds to
provide education and training for people who currently receive
social assistance. Far too many children live in poverty because
parents do not have the option of furthering their education and
developing meaningful careers. By providing opportunities for
education and training we will see welfare rolls decrease.
The proposed two tier system of unemployment as it relates to
insurance has received considerable support in my riding at this
early stage of social policy review. I contend that the UI
program is being abused. The program should be used only as
insurance in circumstances where Canadians find themselves
unavoidably caught between employment opportunities. That is
what the program was originally intended for but is not how the
program operates today.
7086
Unfortunately many Canadians have learned to depend on UI
as a steady source of income. I do not think it is fair to ask
working Canadians to subsidize those who consistently
calculate UI into annual income strategies. We have to pay
special attention to our seasonal workers. There are many
Canadians and many careers in Canada that depend on seasonal
employment. Those people cannot be left out in the cold, but
we must address the excessive costs to Canadian taxpayers of
a system that allows people to depend on social assistance when
they are capable of working.
Rather than simply ignoring frequent UI applicants we should
help them find long term employment, or perhaps multiple
seasonal jobs. The government is obviously open to
suggestions. We cannot escape the fact that the UI system needs
improvement.
In conclusion I support the discussion paper on social policy
because it represents an agenda for change. We are going
through profound changes. Some of these changes are stamped
with dire predictions of doom and gloom. I say that just the
opposite is true. Social policy review is one component of a new
process for change. We are asking that Canadians temper their
immediate expectations. We are asking for sacrifice today so
that our children may prosper in the future.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the dissertation of my hon.
colleague from Kenora-Rainy River on the very important
subject of social policy reform.
(1325 )
Would the hon. member opposite be good enough to clarify
his personal views on two very basic subjects? First, does the
member opposite feel that entitlements or benefits should be
based on need or want? Second, should those benefits be
available universally or universally available, which is a very
different phrase? Third and because it is so important, what
would the hon. member opposite consider to be the minimum
definition of a child in poverty?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across the way let
me make it clear I believe that benefits should be based on need.
The fact remains that we as a government can assess policy
options through the review we are having with Canadians once
the consultation process is over. I believe there is a strong
possibility that we will be able to create change and programs
and policies that base their assumptions on the needs of certain
Canadians.
On the question of what is perceived to be the definition of
poverty, I grew up in what would probably be classified as a poor
to lower middle class family with 10 children. Our father and
mother worked their tails off to get us through school and to a
point where we could succeed as Canadians should. To me
poverty is when there is no opportunity to succeed. That is a
pretty easy, simple definition. When I went to school and was of
university age I would never have had the ability to go to
university without government participation. My parents could
not afford to send 10 kids to university.
There is a need for governments to participate in helping
people with the capabilities get from one school level to the
next. The government and its record will prove that we have
done that in the past and will do it in the future.
To me poverty also means that the basic necessities of life are
looked after so students do not go to school hungry. In
Kenora-Rainy River I represent the most aboriginal
communities of any member of the House with a total of 46. A
large majority of the kids I represent in First Nations
communities go to bed hungry and go to school hungry.
If we as a government are not cognizant of that fact and do not
create programs to deal with young people, how can they be
expected to get off the treadmill they are on? Governments
should participate in a program that makes sure young people
have an opportunity or a chance by having a roof over their head
and by being well fed and well nourished. Then when they do go
to school, because we are supplying education, they will want to
learn. They will be willing to get to the next step.
As a young person I had the opportunity to get into an
educational institution to better myself so that I could make my
way and make a life for my own family.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has stated that the consultation document being
debated for the past few days ago accommodated a need for
change. I would like to tell him that we will wait and see how the
people react, if they feel there is really a need to cut in our social
safety net. Let me give him an example of the impact one of the
measures contained in this document will have.
As this is only a consultation document, I will ask him to tell
us how he feels more particularly about cuts in established
programs, the post-secondary education shared-cost programs
between the federal government the provinces. A $300 million
cut is contemplated. Cutting transfers in this area will have the
following impact on the provinces, which have no more
financial resources than the federal government: just for the
education system to be maintained, tuition fees will have to be at
least doubled.
(1330)
On the other hand, the same document mentions training
objectives, the fact that in today's competitive market, adequate
training is essential and we must find a way to target training
well, to make sure Canadians are adequately trained. At the
7087
same time, the government pushes for a measure that will result
in tuition fees doubling, because we must recognize that these
fees will double. I have heard the member give the example of a
large family. Does he not believe that this measure will
adversely affect access to post-secondary education and thus
hinder training in terms of secondary and post-secondary
education?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought up
before. I do not know how long the member opposite has been
out of school but as you can tell I have not been out of school that
long. I remember when I borrowed money from the government
through the system that was in place at that time which basically
has not been changed very dramatically since then.
One of the issues the member talks about is the fact that there
is a proposal to make cuts in the funding that flows directly to
provinces. I totally encourage that. In fact I have discussed it
with my colleagues. The present system of dollars flowing to the
provinces for post-secondary education has totally failed young
Canadians. It has not worked.
If the member is concerned that tuition is rising, he should
look at what has been happening around him. It has been rising
10 per cent per year for the last four or five years. It is on the
move up.
The government is suggesting a system where students can
pay back the dollars they borrowed based on how much money
they make when they get out of the system. It is a system used in
other parts of the world and is much more efficient.
If he talks to the staff in his office about one particular
constituency problem he may regularly face, he may find that
young people are coming in on a regular basis because they
cannot afford to pay their student loans. There has to be a way of
changing the system and that is one of its major problems.
Last, he asked about training. One of the proposals is about
transferring dollars to training and supplementing the people on
welfare with training dollars. We are not reducing the amount of
money that a Canadian will get. We are increasing it with a
built-in incentive which is a much more appropriate process
than saying to someone: ``Here is your welfare cheque. Don't
ever bother coming back into the system. Stay where you are.
We like you being on the poverty line''. We are saying that we
will give a minimum amount of welfare but we will supplement
it with training dollars so people can improve themselves and
get back into the workforce. In this way they will be a part of the
constructive society we are trying to build.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of our whip and pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) the Reform
caucus will be dividing its time.
I would like to comment briefly on the discussion paper
before us on social security released by the Minister of Human
Resources Development. As well I would like to comment on
remarks made regarding the Financial Post and the poll it has
taken. I note there is major support for what is called
``Axworthy's reforms''. The question is very simple: Do you
support reform of the social security system? Anybody would
say yes to that. Anybody. The question really does not have very
much credibility when you look at it.
Of note also in that poll is another statistic that is relevant and
I would like to talk about it here today. It is that 78 per cent of
those people polled thought that reforms were to save money
and to meet the government's goal of deficit reduction. People
are very conscious of their responsibilities and of the current
circumstances of the government.
This discussion document has established three objectives:
first, to help Canadians get and keep work; second, to support
those most vulnerable; and third, to ensure affordability. These
are certainly laudable goals which all of us can support.
However the discussion paper does not set out a realistic plan to
achieve them.
(1335 )
First, the paper does not adequately recognize the gravity of
the financial situation we are facing in this nation. Second, the
paper attaches no price tag to any of the proposals. If the
document is to enable Canadians to make intelligent choices
regarding our social security system, it must include the cost of
the programs and a realistic picture of how much money we can
afford to spend. I certainly want to emphasize the word afford at
this point in time.
The first objective of the social security review is to increase
employment. How does the minister propose to do this? Three
ideas are presented and it is worthy of note that none of them are
specific nor do any come with a price tag.
The minister suggests improving employment development
services. The list includes job counselling, training, labour
market information and various other buzzwords that we read in
discussion papers such as this one.
The paper notes that existing programs which provide these
services have not worked very well, however no consideration is
given for why they have not worked. This is the first place where
the paper is inadequate. No time is taken to consider why the
existing programs have failed to meet their objectives. Rather it
is automatically assumed that what we need is a new program to
fix the mess that was left by the old ones, just a new program.
Incentives for hiring unemployed workers are also suggested
in the paper. Such schemes often call for the government to pay a
portion of the worker's wages so that he or she can gain valuable
work experience. This all sounds great on the surface, however
7088
these types of programs lead only to rearranged jobs rather than
adding new ones.
Furthermore when employment incentives are exhausted
firms simply drop the formerly subsidized workers from the
payroll and the cycle begins again. Another unemployed person
is picked up by the government program only to be dropped
shortly thereafter. That is not the solution to the problem. The
OECD, and I add this as support, has examined such subsidy
programs and concluded they cost more than the value of the
benefit they derive.
The paper before us considers the unemployment insurance
system. Certainly the unemployment insurance system needs
reform but the minister should know that simply changing the
name from unemployment insurance to employment insurance
will not save the Canadian taxpayer one cent nor will it add one
job to the economy.
At least in the case of UI the paper gives two fairly clear
options. However they are once again without any type of cost
benefit analysis. How much more money would it cost? We do
not know the answer to this question. This is precisely what
makes this discussion paper inappropriate as a consultation tool
under the present fiscal circumstances. Hard financial choices
have to be made and this paper seems to ignore those choices
which must be made not only by the House of Commons but by
the Canadian people as a whole.
The discussion paper also deals with the funding of education.
Certainly literacy and lifelong learning are trendy concepts but
where are the specifics? How will the government increase
literacy and improve access to education? This is perhaps the
section of the paper which is most devoid of any realistic and
detailed suggestions. This is unfortunate since the government's
own admission is that education is a key factor in economic
growth and productivity.
In addition to the status quo only two options are presented.
They include the use of RRSPs to fund education and training
and also a system of income contingent student loans.
The government has turned to RRSPs to accomplish various
whims of its social agenda. It does not want to deal with what I
believe is the root problem: government overspending. RRSPs
were used to stimulate housing in the first time home buyers
plan. Now the government is considering them for education.
(1340)
Canada's growing inability to fund essential programs cannot
be resolved on the back of RRSPs even though they may be a
good idea for saving not only for education but for a person's
retirement. Rather the government must cut unnecessary
spending in order to stop the crippling effects of our spiralling
debt.
On the issue of income contingent loans I will simply draw the
attention of hon. members to a private member's bill on this
very issue by the leader of the Reform Party. We encourage
members opposite to continue to read the blue book. It has given
me great pleasure to watch the Minister of Finance as he has
moved from the red book to the purple book to the grey book.
Most likely one of these days he will see the light and accept the
blue book.
The second objective of the government's social security
review is to support those most vulnerable. We in the Reform
Party support this objective as well. Once again, however, we
disagree with the discussion paper as to the best way to achieve
this goal. The role of social policy must be to foster the right
balance between personal responsibility to care for yourself and
your family and both public and private health for those truly in
need; in other words, targeted support and assistance.
Since the 1960s the government has enacted program after
program which discouraged personal responsibility and
encouraged many Canadians to rely on the government for their
support and sustenance. We see the devastating results today.
The third objective in the government's social security review
is to ensure that social programs are financially sustainable. We
all support that. It is a good goal. However, how is it going to be
done? The green book contains the statement: ``The debt needs
to be tackled because it causes real damage to jobs and
security''. Where has the minister been? The debt has been
causing real damage to jobs and security for quite some time
now.
Perhaps the minister should pay more careful attention to his
colleague the Minister of Finance. He recognizes that the debt
and the deficit are hurting our economy now. It is crippling our
ability to compete economically. One of the facts we know is
that the annual cost of the $535 billion debt now consumes 42
per cent of federal revenues, excluding the unemployment
insurance program which is self-financing.
I ask this question: Does the Minister of Human Resources
Development understand the significance of our ability to
finance social programs? What about the possibility of a
recession? It could occur before the government significantly
surpasses or meets the 3 per cent deficit to GDP target. What
will that mean to government revenues? It will mean that they
could dive, that interest rates could climb and possibly the debt
will spiral. I shudder to think of the fate of our social programs
and medicare under those circumstances.
From a financial perspective another serious problem with
regard to this review process is the exclusion of the Canada
pension program and old age assistance from the process. Under
the present framework these two programs will become more
expensive due to changing demographics. This expansion will
increase payroll taxes causing a further drop in employment and
increased economic insecurity. This is only symptomatic of a
7089
broader problem. If unchecked, the growth in social spending
when combined with interest on the debt will consume 100 per
cent of government revenues by the year 2010.
As I have said, the traditional Liberal approach to social
policy which is presented in this discussion paper denies the
financial realities of today. Recognizing the extreme
seriousness of our deficit problem and reducing social program
expenditures is essential if we are to preserve the ability to help
those who are truly in need.
(1345 )
Reductions in spending are not heartless. Consider the advice
of the finance minister to our finance committee:
If people come before you and say that now is not the time to cut, ask them to
describe the morality and the justice of letting the debt continue to run wild,
unchecked, ruining the future of our children.
That is a significant statement and one that must be
considered when we look at this social review. When the social
review is considered in the context of Canada's economic
situation, one hard fact emerges to which the green book gives
little attention. The social security review must result in
expenditure reductions. Seventy-eight per cent of the people
polled said that must be a target.
The finance minister admitted this reality in his budget
speech in February when he said the days of governments-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if I might
seek the assistance of the House. The 10 minutes has certainly
well lapsed. I know that 10 minutes on subject matter of such
importance is not very long. If the House would agree to let the
member conclude his remarks, we would waive the five minute
question and comment period.
Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
very much.
If the government wants to meet its objectives of helping
people find and keep work, protecting the vulnerable and
ensuring affordability, it must recognize that major reductions
in spending are required. Only when the financial situation of
this country is brought under control will our social programs be
safe.
In light of this the Minister of Human Resources
Development must be criticized for neglecting to include
financial details in the discussion paper. If the government
continues on its present course with social reform and refuses to
make the required reductions in expenditures, the time will soon
come when Canada will be unable to care for those who are truly
in need. Reformers are much too responsible to let that happen.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker , it is a
pleasure for me to rise in the House today to respond to the
government motion on social program reform. It is indeed
encouraging to see the Liberal Party which brought us these
failed experiments in social engineering finally concede that its
programs are unworkable and unsustainable.
Canada is under attack today, far greater than any attack that
might have come our way by war. We are under attack by a
deficit and a debt that are dragging us down. The finance
minister has come to appreciate this. In the last week or so he has
been talking about the fact that we are in debt to our eyeballs, the
impact that debt has on job creation and indeed the threat to our
social programs.
I am pleased we are having this discussion today because the
social programs we are talking about represent such a huge part
of the federal government's budget. In addressing these
programs we must find a way of delivering them not only
cheaper but better. I think that can be done. Over the years we
have thrown money at these problems to the detriment. We have
not helped the situation, we have aggravated it.
I look forward to this discussion today. I would like to point
out there should be no question that when it is all over there must
be a dollar saving. The taxpayers are asking for it. It was
reflected in the study reported today in the Financial Post that
Canadian taxpayers are supporting what is going on here
because they very much believe it is going to represent a saving
in tax dollars, which we all so desperately need. I want to make
that point. It is not something the government should be
ashamed of. It is something the people in this country want and
are asking for.
Nowhere is it more evident in the Liberal attempt to change or
reorder society than in the social programs that directly intrude
on the family. The whole area of child care expenditure with the
state as the nanny is a clear example of this intrusion. Today I
will look at the Liberal ideas and current programs and I will
offer the Reform constructive alternative.
The Liberal social security discussion paper describes
institutional day care as a priority if social programs are to be
reformed. It states that we must provide working parents with
the assurance of quality care. I would ask what care could
possibly be better than quality care offered by the child's own
parents? No government program or initiative, no matter how
well thought out and expensive, could ever provide the love and
affection or match the quality of care that only parents can
provide.
(1350)
The minister stated in the House when asked about informal
child care, meaning family, friends and neighbours, that parents
have to work because that is how they get sufficient income. The
minister should have said sufficient disposable income because
7090
almost all Canadians earn more than sufficient wages. This
government and others tax over half of it away. It is excessively
high taxes that have forced both parents out to work.
When my Reform colleagues and I came to Ottawa we
promised to be a constructive alternative, to be open and honest
and offer our best solutions to the debate. We have done this in
many ways, including producing our plan to eliminate the
deficit in three years and a comprehensive policy manual called
the blue sheet.
Today in this House I am going to make it very clear where the
Reform Party stands on the reform of social programs directed
at children. I am also going to give the minister some clear
direction in some areas where he can cut spending or spend more
effectively.
The Reform Party believes that the care of children is the
domain of families and that parents must have full responsibility
in Canadian society to nurture, provide for and rear their
children. Current federal government programs are intrusive
and restrict the choices that parents may make in deciding on the
best type of care for their family.
The role of government is to provide a fair tax and benefit
system that provides parents with the opportunity to properly
care for their children in a manner of their choosing.
Government must uphold the authority and responsibilities of
parents as exclusive in the area of child rearing. The only
acceptable direct role for the government is as an intervener to
protect children in cases of abuse or neglect.
According to the red ink book, this Liberal government is
spending over 400 million tax dollars a year on institutionalized
day care already and plans to spend an additional $720 million
over the next three years. Given the recent discovery that the
current deficit is indeed as serious as we have been saying all
along, how do we justify this? A Reform government would end
all state run day care.
We believe that the federal government should not involve
itself with day care programs in any way. If regulation of
services is necessary then this should be provided by the level of
government closest to those Canadians receiving the service
which can most efficiently provide that regulation. Regulation
of day care is a provincial responsibility and should remain so.
Federal involvement in and funding for day care should be
terminated.
Let us make no mistake about this point. Federal governments
have long justified their intrusion in matters of provincial social
program responsibility with the short phrase: ``They cannot
afford to fund it fully themselves''. If the provinces cannot
afford it, it is because it is indeed unaffordable. There is only
one source of funding for all levels of government because there
is only one taxpayer. If taxpayers cannot afford something
provincially, what makes the Liberal government think that it
can afford it?
The military family support program is a small bureaucracy
within the Department of National Defence that costs taxpayers
$16 million a year and which does not directly benefit one child.
There is another $100 million to be saved by eliminating the
children's bureau of Health Canada. This is not a Liberal
creation. It was a pet project of the failed government of Brian
Mulroney. There should be no opposition from this Liberal
government to eliminating this large Conservative created
bureaucracy that exists simply to study day care and push
so-called safe sex education. Little of this $100 million directly
benefits children.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
spends $270 million on various child care programs. Much of
this money is directed at institutions and so-called
professionals. This is unacceptable to the Reform Party and we
believe it must stop.
The child care expense deduction is an example of gross
inequality in our tax system, discriminating against stay at home
parents. This tax deduction will cost over $1.5 billion in lost
revenue per year while the modest supplemental benefit is
another $400 million.
(1355 )
There are several reasonable alternatives to this current
situation. However the bottom line is that any benefit which is
given to parents to care for their children must be applied
equally regardless of employment status.
A few weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance shot down a bill in this House that would have
allowed parents to split some of their income for taxation
purposes. Such a measure would have introduced some of the
equity and fairness we as a party are looking for. It would also
have recognized the value of the work of stay at home parents
who are mostly women.
This government likes to talk about defending women's rights
and introducing equality for women. In fact, it has even
appointed a secretary of state responsible for so-called women's
issues. I wonder which issues this secretariat represents. Are
they the issues pushed by NAC and the day care lobby? They are
certainly not responding to the needs and concerns of working
Canadian parents, the majority of whom wish to have one parent
stay at home to raise their children as was made quite clear by
the recent Angus Reid poll on the family.
We believe that tax reform will be a key aspect of any true
reform of social programs. As a party, Reformers believe that a
move toward a system of flat taxation will lower administrative
costs dramatically and introduce new fairness to taxation.
7091
With respect to children, the Reform Party would continue
to recognize the costs associated with their care through a tax
credit that would be available to those families with dependent
children who are in financial need. The credit would be a simple
line on the income tax form and applied directly to each year's
taxes. Such a system would provide fair treatment to all
families and allow parents the freedom to make their choices
about providing the best care for their children.
There are some obvious spin-off benefits to the family centre
policy that the Reform Party is advocating. Parents provide the
best nurturing environment for their children. Children who are
raised in other environments are statistically more likely to
engage in criminal activity, do poorly in school and become a
burden on the social safety net. It is in the best interests of all
Canadians, financially and otherwise, to ensure that children
receive the best possible care available, the care that exists
within the family.
I have pointed out areas of spending in which this Liberal
government can find savings in the order of hundreds of millions
of dollars. I have described some basic ways to make the social
programs currently directed at children more equitable while
allowing parents more options.
Let us get out of the day care business, provide a fair tax
system and allow families the freedom to make their own
decisions. I believe that we need to put the needs and concerns of
families first. We can achieve our deficit cutting goals, save our
social safety net-
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have a few moments.
Of course we will look forward to hearing the culmination of
your remarks a little bit after Question Period.
It being 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7091
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the Supreme Court of Canada
accepted the logic of the defence of drunkenness when one Henri
Daviault said he did not know what he was doing when he
dragged a 65-year old women from her wheelchair and raped
her.
When the highest court in Canada grants acquittal for rape
based on drunkenness, women are set back 100 years to
non-person status. This is insensitive and offensive.
Drunkenness must not be an excuse to commit crimes against
women.
On behalf of all women, I urge the justice minister to act
swiftly to accept the recommendation of the Law Reform
Commission that dangerous intoxication be made a criminal
offence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has just announced
that it is delaying for the second time the release of its final
report. This report, which has already cost $58 million, will not
be available until early in 1996. Aboriginal people faced with
overwhelming poverty, unprecedented unemployment and
suicide rates, and housing conditions which bring shame on
Canada around the world, do not need additional studies.
While the commission studies the issues to death, the
government makes piecemeal decisions or defers them until the
commission submits its report, which will only state the
obvious.
The $58 million would have been better used to build 1,000
houses. The minister should take action and give Natives the
funds essential to their future, which a royal commission is now
wasting.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for more than two
years a herd of 800 Canadian owned alpacas has been held in
Australia pending clearance by Agriculture Canada. These
animals originated in New Zealand where they may have
contacted the neuroparasite E-Cervi from deer.
There is no evidence that alpacas can carry and transmit this
parasite, but it has not been proved that they cannot. The
parasite has a dormancy period of several years and there is no
clinical test for it.
One must wonder why Agriculture Canada's concern for the
health of Canadian animals is greater than the concern of
Immigration Canada for the health and welfare of Canadian
people. Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada
without being screened for HIV. The transmission vectors of this
virus are well known. Many years may pass before HIV carriers
develop full-blown AIDS but the virus is readily detectable
by-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Moncton.
7092
[Translation]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the parliamentary break, Canada and Malaysia hosted an
international conference here in the capital.
[English]
This conference focused on efforts to improve sustainable
forest management around the world. It is of great significance
that Canada and Malaysia and other participants have been able
to establish a process which furthers the aims established in Rio
in 1992. Our leadership and involvement in this process
recognize the critical importance of forestry to this country's
economic and social well-being and our commitment to
sustainable development.
These meetings and future meetings could well see a positive
commitment by all forest nations to environmentally
sustainable development throughout the world.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the young Liberal government and policy
information centre recently opened at the University of Guelph.
This is designed as a resource centre for students requiring
information on various government projects and programs.
I congratulate Jeff Paul, president of the University of Guelph
Liberals for this initiative. This centre is Jeff's idea and he
hopes to encourage University of Guelph students to learn more
about government and to help create dialogue and discussion.
Young people will be the leaders of government and of
tomorrow. Resource centres like the one recently opened at the
University of Guelph can help students to understand
government programs and more important, encourage
participation in the decision making process.
Best wishes to Jeff Paul and everyone associated with this
important project.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Wednesday, October 18 marked seven years since
leaders from around the world met to discuss the United Nations
report on our common future.
The report confirmed the global confrontation between
human activities and the environment. It made an urgent plea for
shifting to sustainable practices.
There has been much talk in those seven years. Some
efficiencies have been gained in the way we do things. We are a
little less wasteful and we recycle a whole lot more, but the basic
patterns of our society remain unchanged and our long term
well-being is seriously threatened.
Part of the problem lies with the lack of clarity of the term.
People interpret it in different ways and as a result sustainable
development is implemented in different ways.
A number of government initiatives currently under way must
help clarify what is meant by the term in order to ensure a shift
toward sustainability. We must ensure that the needs of our
future generations are not compromised by our actions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
despite the Prime Minister's promise at the convention of the
Liberal Party of Canada last May, despite the promise repeated
many times in this House by the Minister of Justice, Quebecers
and Canadians are still waiting for more effective gun control
legislation. We knew that this government was inclined not to
take action and susceptible to the harmful and hidden influence
of lobby groups. But we did not know that this government saw
the representations of some major lobby groups as more
important than people's safety.
Last week's events in Ontario add to the sad list of victims of
this lack of effective gun control.
(1405)
Last weekend, the Prime Minister tried to appear reassuring
by saying, ``The sooner the better''. When? Quebecers and
Canadians have been waiting for a whole year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to honour the men
and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who perform
peacekeeping roles professionally and courageously so far away
from home.
It is fitting that our soldiers have earned eight Nobel peace
prizes through their participation in 26 United Nations missions.
Every day Canadian peacekeepers earn the respect of the world,
but still the awareness of Canadians at home is low.
With this in mind, Mrs. Jocelyn Fleurant of British Columbia,
a courageous mother of one of our peacekeepers, launched the
blue ribbon campaign.
7093
Mrs. Fleurant has distributed 44,000 blue ribbons for this
special day. In a letter she writes: ``We should all stand up and
be proud and unite our voices to give Canadian peacekeepers
the recognition they deserve''.
I call on every member of this House to honour these
Canadians who serve us so well. Wear your blue ribbon today,
show them we care and wear it with pride.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
local 691 of the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers
Union of Canada is on strike at the Irving oil refinery in Saint
John, New Brunswick.
The company has insisted on a longer work week and less pay
for overtime. Not only is this an attempt by Irving to exempt
itself from national bargaining but it is a good example of how
jobs are not being created where they are desperately needed.
Irving could create 30 full time jobs, the equivalent of what is
being demanded in terms of longer hours. Instead it is using
scabs to do the opposite.
It is about time for all levels of government that have not done
so already to bring in anti-scab legislation. Workers who want
to increase employment opportunities for the unemployed
should not have to go on strike to do so and then have scab labour
take their jobs.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a
fellow Canadian, Bertram Brockhouse, co-recipient with
American Clifford Shull, of the Swedish Royal Academy of
Sciences 1994 Nobel prize for physics.
Dr. Brockhouse won this most prestigious scientific award for
his pioneering contributions to the development of neutron
scattering techniques for studies of matter.
The work for which Dr. Brockhouse was awarded the prize
was performed at AECL's research reactors during his tenure at
the Chalk River laboratories from 1950 to 1962. His
achievements included the invention of the triple axis
spectrometer, a powerful instrument which he used with great
success investigating the properties of solids and liquids at the
atomic level. It is now in use worldwide at every major neutron
scattering laboratory.
Dr. Brockhouse thus established for Canada a position of
world leadership in the field of neutron scattering. I want to take
this opportunity to congratulate him.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend Canadian fighter pilots did
themselves and their country proud by placing a close second,
their best ever performance in the prestigious 40th anniversary
William Tell air to air weapons meet in Florida.
Team Canada, made up of pilots from 3 Wing, Canadian
Forces Base Bagotville, Quebec was led by Captain Francois
Garceau of St. Donat, Quebec who placed second in the top gun
competition for pilots with the best overall performance
Captain Marc Charpentier of Lasalle, Quebec won the top
shooter competition. Captains Garceau and Charpentier teamed
up to win the top element competition.
Canadians are proud of our military men and women who risk
their lives every day serving their country in their work and in
peacekeeping missions around the world. They are no less proud
of Canadian forces accomplishments for achieving top honours
in rigorous training competitions.
I am sure I am joined by this House when I say to the pilots
and ground crew of Team Canada congratulations to each and
every one of you on a tremendous performance and a job well
done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the next few years, China may become the number one
country in the world for exports, and this is very important for
Canada, considering that we are a major exporter. The decision
made by the Prime Minister to go to China with the provincial
premiers is a very important initiative. Indeed, we had to send
our top officials to China in order to show that Canada means
business when it comes to exports.
(1410)
Consequently, I think the premier of Quebec should
reconsider his decision and accompany the Prime Minister and
the other provincial premiers to China. It is important that the
leaders of a major exporting country such as ours show
solidarity in such circumstances.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend, the daily
Le Devoir reminded us of something
which, unfortunately, we have known for a long time, namely
that Canada has a poor record as regards manpower training. The
author of the article even calls Canada the dunce among G-7
countries, as well as the black sheep of OECD.
7094
In his discussion paper, the Minister of Human Resources
Development admits that training programs are in a real mess.
Quebec came to that conclusion more than five years ago at the
forum on employment and asked for the transfer, to its
government, of the whole responsibility for training.
The minister's action should be consistent with his findings,
and he should announce, at last, that this responsibility will be
transferred from the federal to the provincial government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
National Hockey League regular season remains on hold
flooding continues to occur in Calgary Centre.
Unfortunately that flooding is not taking place on the ice in
the Olympic Saddledome but in the worn out storm sewers of
northwest Calgary. Recently Calgary residents had their homes
flooded out for the third time this year while the $8 million
infrastructure renovations to the run down, obsolete, dilapidated
Saddledome continue without interruption.
This government defined infrastructure as physical assets
instrumental in the provision of public services, not private. By
the government's own definition this is not infrastructure money
but a direct subsidy to private business.
I question the government's sense of priorities when the needs
of the sports world outweigh those of the real world.
The only thing that is obsolete and dilapidated in Calgary is
not the 10-year old Saddledome but the pork-barrel policies of
this Liberal government.
Lest it forget, the debt today is $535,538,939,082.82.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
United Nations Day. One of the most significant functions
carried out by the United Nations was initiated by Lester B.
Pearson, a Nobel peace prize winner.
As our minister of external affairs, Mr. Pearson introduced a
resolution to establish the first UN peacekeeping force. That
force made up largely of Canadians intervened in the Suez Canal
crisis. Canada's contributions to world peacekeeping have been
outstanding.
This week we are asked to wear a blue ribbon, as my colleague
opposite said, to honour the service of United Nations
peacekeepers around the world.
On behalf of hon. members I thank Ms. Jocelyn Fleurant of
British Columbia for her dedication in promoting this idea and I
urge all my hon. colleagues to participate.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
shooting at a Brockton school compels us to think about
violence and its prevention.
Clearly the possession of handguns is not a right but a
privilege which must be tightly regulated. The weapon used at
Brockton was illegal. The student fired a gun because he felt
threatened economically. He reacted with an unacceptable
violent act and ended up in jail.
How can violence be prevented if weapons are available
illegally? Would longer sentences curb violence? Apparently
not, judging from the United States.
I believe we must look at the root causes of violence, what we
teach youngsters including through TV and videos, the
adequacy of mental health services, economic and job security,
adequate social housing and community services.
Clearly the roots of violence are to be found in society and
family. In the end we will be more successful in preventing
violence through socioeconomic measures and by doing away
with the glorification of violence.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of dire urgency that we
as parliamentarians must deal with immediately. The urgency is
the continuing problem of illegal firearm use on the streets of
our country.
While I commend the right hon. Prime Minister for his
position of establishing a registry for all firearms in Canada, I
believe that more preventive measures need to be taken. The
government must introduce deterrents to stop violence on our
streets.
(1415)
In April of this year I proposed a mandatory 10-year sentence
for anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a
crime. I strongly believe this sentence should be in addition to
whatever sentence the individual receives for being convicted of
a crime.
7095
The Criminal Code has to be amended to include this
provision. Until it is done criminals will not get the message.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the rights of same sex couples, the provincial NDP
government recently proposed a bill in which gay and lesbian
couples would be granted rights which only heterosexual
couples now enjoy. The bill did not pass second reading and
died.
My personal stand on the issue is that I object to any
suggestion which would have homosexual couples treated the
same way as heterosexual couples. Although I will fight against
any discrimination whether it is on the basis of race, sex,
religion or other, I do not believe homosexuals should be treated
as families.
``My wife and I do not claim that we are homosexuals. Why
should homosexuals pretend they form a family?'' That
statement is in a letter to a constituent written in June of this
year by the Liberal member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Obviously the Liberal whip wants to vote his conscience and
according to the wishes of his constituency.
I call on the Prime Minister for a free vote so that the
government whip can do just that.
_____________________________________________
7095
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on October 19, the Prime Minister said in this
House that in his thirty years as a politician, he had never been
advised of any spying activities.
Saturday, however, as he left a special cabinet meeting, after
questions by the Bloc about the confessions of spy Mike Frost
and additional revelations made the day before on the CBC
French network's news program, the Prime Minister suddenly
announced he had specifically instructed his ministers not to spy
on citizens who are conducting legitimate operations.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. When
was the Prime Minister advised that federal services were
spying or had spied on Canadian citizens engaged in legitimate
activities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what
the Prime Minister did not say. What he said, what he repeated in
the House, what he repeated Saturday and what he repeated to
everyone is that he never, never, never was involved in spying on
any political party whatsoever. He would appreciate the same
courtesy being extended to all Canadians. That is what he said
Saturday and what he said last week, and that is this
government's policy.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that the Prime
Minister was never involved in spying activities. That is not the
question. The question is about the federal government and
federal services.
According to official information released in 1991, the CSE's
intelligence and security activities are the responsibility of the
Privy Council and thus of the Prime Minister. Consequently, the
present Prime Minister has direct access to information
collected in the past by the CSE.
My question is whether, considering recent revelations, the
government has specifically checked with the CSE whether
sovereignist figures like René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau or
Louise Beaudoin have ever been under electronic or other
surveillance.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
premise is false. Second, Saturday, the Prime Minister himself
defended the right of separatists to express their views and do
their job in a legitimate manner. I wonder whether the hon.
member is referring to what might have been a policy in the
past? Does he refuse to take the Prime Minister at his word when
he says that all Canadians, including separatists, have the right
to do their job without being monitored or spied on? Does he not
take the Prime Minister at his word?
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept answers that are full of holes and
hidden meanings. There are those who know and those who do
not want to know. Obviously, the Prime Minister and the Deputy
Prime Minister belong to the latter group, those who would
rather see no evil and hear no evil.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: They would rather not see or hear about
illegal activities.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, as a guardian and the
government which is also a guardian, in the broader sense, of our
fundamental rights, to tell us, and the question is the same one I
asked earlier, and I would now like a precise answer: Did the
government check with the CSE whether the CSE had ever spied
on René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau or Louise Beaudoin?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said Friday, and the
Prime Minister said last week and he said it again on Saturday:
the CSE has no mandate to spy on any Canadians, including
members of the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the
Reform Party, the Liberals or any political party. They do not
have the right to engage in spying. Is that clear?
7096
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Saturday, after a cabinet strategy meeting, the Prime Minister
tried to minimize the extent of the revelations concerning the
spying activities of federal agencies. He said that he was not
interested in this kind of thing or in what happened under
previous governments, including those under which he served.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what important piece of
news her government has learned lately, which prompted it to
give clear instructions putting an end to spying on citizens
engaged in legitimate political activities?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize members
opposite are looking for an issue. Let me tell them that they are
looking in the wrong place.
There is no smoking gun. The Prime Minister has repeated the
position of the government, that the service in question has no
legal right to spy on any Canadian, including legitimate political
parties.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Are we to understand that the instructions the Prime Minister
hastily gave this week-end were only aimed at reassuring the
public following extremely serious revelations concerning
illegal activities on the part of federal intelligence agencies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the Prime
Minister confirmed, as he did last week, as I did on Friday, as we
will undoubtedly do when answering questions tomorrow and
the day after, that the CSE does not have the mandate to spy on
Canadians. The Prime Minister, true democrat that he is,
stressed that no MP, no political party, including separatists,
should be spied on. Because he is a real democrat, he is looking
forward to meeting the separatists on the battle field, and the
real battle field will be the referendum, when they are brave
enough to set a date for it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Institute put it bluntly when it said
that the 3 per cent of GDP deficit reduction target signalled the
lack of urgency. Many question whether the government will
seize the opportunity to get its financial house in order at all.
C. D. Howe, the Globe and Mail, the Financial Post and other
commentators speak for a growing contingent that criticize the
finance minister for not moving decisively toward the goal of a
zero deficit.
The economic growth which Canada temporarily enjoys
affords the government a great opportunity to put its fiscal house
in order. I ask the finance minister: Will the government
abandon its timid deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in
favour of the more ambitious target of eliminating the deficit by
the end of its current term in office?
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Institute has made
a very constructive contribution to the debate. I would only hope
the Reform Party might emulate the C. D. Howe Institute and
attempt to make a constructive contribution to the debate.
Let me simply say that we are going to stay with our 3 per cent
target because it is by far the best way to keep everybody's feet
in the fire. As the hon. member knows, our ultimate goal is to
eliminate the deficit.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the finance minister that the Reform Party
is doing all it can to help him to convince his caucus to move in
the right direction and reduce government spending.
The minister's plan to trim the deficit will in three short years
add $100 billion to our debt and increase the annual interest
payments from $40 billion to $50 billion. If the government
cannot do better than that we will be in a disastrous position
when the business cycle delivers its next economic downturn, a
recession.
Because our economy is not recession proof, is the finance
minister willing to risk the economic consequences of going
into the next recession with a $25 billion deficit, a $50 billion
yearly interest bill and a $630 billion total national debt?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious
the hon. member opposite watched the presentations last week.
He now seems to have demonstrated an understanding of
compound interest for which I would congratulate him.
That being said, instead of planning for the next recession,
perhaps the hon. member and his party might emulate the C. D.
Howe Institute he cited in his preamble and begin to make
constructive suggestions on how we might hit the target.
7097
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows well we have tabled
plans that would help him to accomplish the goal he has asked
us to accomplish. We are willing to work constructively.
It took a year for the minister to admit that the Reform Party
was on the right track and he was on the wrong track with regard
to meeting his wimpy deficit targets. I hope he takes our advice a
little more quickly this time.
The minister has set aside a contingency fund of $3 billion for
the 1996-97 fiscal year. If the finance minister commits this
fund to deficit reduction he will only be halfway to meeting his
target.
The Speaker: The questions are little long today, probably
because it is Monday. I would ask the hon. member to put his
question forthwith.
Mr. Hermanson: Is the finance minister looking for cuts
exclusive of the $3 billion contingency fund he has, or are his
deficit reduction goals so timid that he is banking on the
contingency fund to meet his deficit reduction target?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
member's question is on page 10 of the grey book. I would
suggest that he read it. It is only a paragraph and a half. If he
reads the rest of the book I am sure he will find the answers to a
number of other questions he raises.
I would like to say one thing. The questioner has said that the
Reform Party has tabled its plans so that we might see them. We
have given members of the Reform Party an opportunity here in
the prebudget debate; they had absolutely nothing to say. They
have had the summer and they are now sitting on the finance
committee.
The Reform Party has not tabled any plans. It has not given us
any suggestions. It has done nothing but engage in empty
rhetoric.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The
Communications Security Establishment concluded
co-operation agreements to exchange information with
intelligence services in seven foreign countries. The
establishment conducted electronic surveillance of two
ministers in Mrs. Thatcher's British government, at the request
of Mrs. Thatcher herself.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the directives
supposedly given last weekend by the Prime Minister also
include forbidding the Communications Security Establishment
to have others carry out its dirty work of electronically spying
on Canadian citizens?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the
member is qualifying his questions on the basis of an
uncorroborated book which has already been characterized by
the Prime Minister of Britain as claptrap.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if she checked
the accuracy of allegations that the Communications Security
Establishment conducted electronic surveillance of two
ministers in the British government led by Mrs. Thatcher, and
what did the CSE get in return?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these unfounded
allegations were the subject of an analysis by the Prime Minister
of Britain who himself characterized them as claptrap.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister for renewal in the public service.
Will the minister give us a date for the tabling of his public
service program review?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the program review is not something for tabling.
The member should have checked what I said at the recent
press conference where I indicated exactly what it is. The
program review is a series of reviews by a cabinet committee
that will make recommendations that will fit into the budgetary
process. The program review at present has not yet come to
conclusions but we are working to be able to make them within
the next few weeks to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on November 5 of last year the minister promised renewal in the
public service. In March he launched his program review. It is
almost 12 months later and surprise, surprise, there is still no
review evident. One year later it is like every other Liberal
policy. It has been reviewed, revisited, rehashed and reduced to
vague generalities.
7098
The departments have already submitted their workforce
adjustment plans to the minister. Will the minister release these
departmental plans right now since I believe they will be a
significant factor in the upcoming social policy review?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the program review itself is not an input into the
social policy review. It is a parallel path.
The member is confusing this with the agency review which
so far has permitted us to abolish 21 agencies and more than 275
GIC appointments with the program review which is part of the
budgetary process. The budget happens once a year. When one
starts reviewing programs for the next budget, obviously one
does it right after the previous budget and it is going to last a
year.
The member will have to wait until the budget of the Minister
of Finance to know the conclusion.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, the
Deputy Prime Minister said on a number of occasions that the
CSE is neither authorized nor mandated to spy on political
figures. Nor was the RCMP authorized to commit crimes in
1970, but this did not stop it from doing so just the same, and
under a Liberal regime at that.
We do not want to know whether the CSE is authorized or
mandated to do it, but if it did do so. Can the Deputy Prime
Minister, from her seat, assure us that it did not? Can she give us
this assurance?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member talks
about what happened 24 years ago.
What happened 24 years ago resulted in a royal commission
and substantial changes to the Canadian intelligence security
service. What is happening today is that the CSE is governed by
the laws of Canada, prohibiting it by law from spying on
Canadians. I cannot see any clearer than that.
The Prime Minister repeated his assurances on the weekend as
I repeated in the House last week. There is absolutely no
mandate for the CSE to be engaged in spying on Canadians.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Deputy Prime Minister realize that her very efforts to respond in
a roundabout way in order to evade the question, as other
government members have, are in themselves an admission of
the fact that sovereignist figures in Quebec have indeed been
spied on? Otherwise, let us hear her state clearly, from her seat,
whether they have or not. Yes or no?
Hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether I state it on
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday, in French or in
English, the fact remains that the CSE does not have a mandate
to spy on Canadians. I might add for the benefit of the hon.
member opposite that, personally, the only spy I have known in
the past was Claude Morin.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
immigrant sponsorships are breaking down and this minister has
not done a thing to enforce them.
Peel region in Ontario recently reported to the minister that up
to 70 per cent of sponsorships are breaking down and ending up
on welfare. Even the Globe and Mail is admitting that
sponsorships, despite being a contractual agreement, are not
worth the paper they are written on.
Can the minister of immigration tell this House if he thinks
the enforcement of this program has failed?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the family sponsorship
breakdown is of concern. Certainly the consultation process has
said that very loud and clear.
Currently roughly 14 per cent of family class sponsorships do
break down at an estimated cost of roughly $700 million to the
federal and provincial treasuries. It is something that I think is
of concern. I ask the member to await November 1 when the
government will present its levels for immigration in 1995. We
will very clearly address this concern.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is
the minister aware of a family which has collected more than
$106,000 in unemployment insurance and welfare in the last
five years and now has sponsored five more relatives, or a man
who was illegally collecting unemployment insurance who just
sponsored his wife? These applications were approved by the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
7099
If the minister does not think that the sponsorship program
is failing, then will he recognize that the Immigration and
Refugee Board has once again proven its stupidity and should
be scrapped?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about stupidity, I
think the member should listen to the answer before reading his
second question. I said very clearly that family-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. minister will want to
rephrase his answer just a little bit at the beginning of the
answer.
Mr. Marchi: I thought since he was throwing the word over
we might have a tit for tat, but I respect the Chair's position.
What I want to say, which I said in the first answer very
clearly, is that the government is concerned about the minority,
nonetheless a very expensive proposition for taxpayers to pick
up. I have met with officials from the region of Peel in my office.
I have discussed the problem with them. Our officials have
discussed the problem with them. We do have a solution and it
will be announced on November 1.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Since last week, the minister is refusing to provide any
information on the activities of CSE, as though the subject were
taboo. I hope that I will have more luck than my colleagues and
that the minister will give a real answer.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell us who is the
director of the Communications Security Establishment? Who
is responsible for the 1,800 employees of that agency?
(1440 )
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think that the government has been quite forthcoming with
answers on this particular matter given the fact that we are
dealing in areas which are somewhat sensitive and deal with our
relations with our allies.
With respect to the CSE in particular, it is a fully constituted
part of the Department of National Defence. Its budget is
included in the departmental estimates. If the hon. member has
any specific questions he can come to the defence committee
and ask questions.
The Minister of National Defence is accountable to the House
of Commons. Certainly I am prepared to answer questions in
committee on the security establishment.
The answers that were given by the Deputy Prime Minister
and the Prime Minister are accurate. The CSE complies with the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, the Privacy
Act and Canadian human rights legislation. In fact in 1987 the
former privacy commissioner, Mr. John Grace, had an
examination made of CSE's activities and found that all was in
order and all was compliant with Canadian law.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
guess I do not have any more luck than my colleagues. It seems
to me that I did not get an answer. My supplementary question is
as follows: Who is in charge of the Communications Security
Establishment and its 1,800 employees?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I gave the answer. I am sorry the hon. member does not
understand it.
The Communications Security Establishment reports to the
Minister of National Defence who is a member of cabinet and
who answers to this House of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
I recently attended a Transport Canada public meeting in my
riding on the southern Ontario area airport study. This study is in
part examining if there is a need for a future airport on federal
lands in Pickering, a legacy that has been going on for some 25
years. Related to this is the question of what will be done with
the lands which have already been declared surplus.
What assurance will the minister give this House that the
result of the study will be made public before a final decision is
made on Pickering airport and of course on the surplus lands?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the study is ongoing. It should be concluded fairly
soon. I am prepared through you, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to
the member and to the House that as the reports are completed
we will make them public. They may not all be done at the same
time. There are technical studies being done and whether they
have to do with the airport construction in the future or the
disposal of surplus lands. We will make the reports public as
soon as they are completed.
7100
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.):
Responding to questions on the Lagueux report, the Minister of
National Defence claimed that the report in no way implicates
any of the senior officials in the department. Yet two directors
general were reprimanded as a result of it. One subsequently
committed suicide. The other was promoted one category and
still occupies that same position. In fact, access to information
reveals that two years after the Lagueux report this individual
was still regularly approving contracts for amounts in excess of
her authorization.
Will the minister explain these inconsistencies in his
response, especially since he claimed that the problems and the
individuals concerned had been dealt with?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I should emphasize that all of these activities predate this
government. We are very concerned with ensuring that all
matters pertaining to the administration of the Department of
National Defence are done in an appropriate manner.
With respect to my comments earlier in the House, we were
talking in the context of the deputy minister and assistant deputy
ministers. I do recognize that senior people at the level of DG
have been disciplined. There was one unfortunate occurrence to
which the hon. member referred.
I should also say, because the hon. member and his colleagues
seem to believe there is something being hidden, that the
Auditor General has been fully aware of this file for the past year
or two. He has been kept fully abreast of all the details
pertaining to this matter. Indeed he has the right to initiate any
inquiry-in fact, I would invite him to do so-if he feels that the
actions being taken internally are insufficient.
Those actions have involved the RCMP, the Public Service
Commission and other internal investigative organizations in
government. It means that if the Auditor General wishes to
initiate an investigation he may do so. All he has to do is let our
officials know.
(1445)
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General, as we have been informed in this
Parliament, is an extremely busy individual. I doubt that he has
time to isolate individual investigations of this sort.
I am informed from within the department that this situation
has resulted in poor morale and even fear of retribution for
people who speak out.
How can the minister justify failing to commission a
professional, independent, clearly unbiased investigation into
these areas of defence department management procedures? By
refusing to take such action he is lending credibility to the
perception that something is very wrong in his department.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all concerning the Auditor General, at any one time in
national defence the Auditor General is conducting between
seven and twelve audits.
The Auditor General has known about the situation in that
particular administrative unit for a couple of years and has been
briefed on how the department is dealing with it. At no time has
he felt that a further investigation was warranted. If the Auditor
General wishes to conduct such an investigation, he may
certainly do so.
As far as morale is concerned, Mr. Speaker, when you get a
unit with about 45 or 50 people in it, where there have been
allegations of misappropriation of funds, where there have been
allegations of harassment and improper contracting practices,
where a criminal charge has been laid and somebody is
convicted, of course that hurts morale.
I would ask the hon. member not to contribute to trying to
make morale, which is otherwise good in the national defence
department, seem any less secure than it really is by the
misguided charges that he and his colleagues have been making
over the last number of weeks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on Saturday, the Prime Minister issued instructions putting an
end to the surveillance activities of the Communications
Security Establishment involving thousands of Canadian
citizens on whom the CSE has important data banks collected
through listening in on their telephone conversations.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. Can he tell us
exactly what action he has taken, following the Prime Minister's
instructions, to put an end to the operations of the ``French
Problem'' unit or any other unit of the CSE involved in the same
kind of activities?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the Prime Minister's remarks on Saturday I
believe that the Deputy Prime Minister's response covered that
quite adequately.
As far as the operations of CSE are concerned, we do not
target the communications of Canadians, pure and simple.
Beyond that I will not say anything else.
7101
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister intend to take action against those who were
involved in illegal surveillance operations?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I totally reject any implication carried in the hon. member's
question.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because the Prime Minister clearly does not understand the
problem, we have the headline in Toronto's Saturday
Star that
says: ``Every gun will be registered''. However we have the real
story on page 15: ``Smugglers swell gun numbers. I can sell
everything I can get, underground dealer says''.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. When is
he going to wake up and start to do something about the real
problem, which is illegally smuggled weapons?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have forgotten that on
February 8 the government launched a quite dramatic 25 per
cent increase in surveillance at the border. This was in relation
to cigarettes and alcohol, but concerned as well smuggled
weapons.
We have expanded quite dramatically this year the resources
going into the protection at the border posts from these various
items which we are attempting to pick up.
(1450 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday last week some people from the minister's office were in
my office. They gave me the same answer the minister just gave
the House: There really is no problem.
The problem is that we have people dying on the streets of
Canada. The problem is being fed with weapons that will never
be registered.
Will the minister at least undertake a review of the processes
so that the problem can be uncovered? Thousands of weapons
are coming across the border illegally.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the review the member requests is already
under way. It is well known that myself, the Solicitor General
and the Minister of Justice are attempting to do whatever the
government can to produce changes to our existing system so
that we can decrease the number of smuggled weapons.
I would remind the hon. member of a fact of which he appears
unaware. We have 130 million border crossings annually
between the U.S. and Canadian border. The United States is a
country which has very widespread ownership of handguns in
particular, but also other weapons. It is extremely difficult to
interdict the weapons coming across under normal
circumstances. We have to have a concerted program involving
the American authorities, ourselves and many government
agencies to reduce the number of weapons.
We certainly wish to do everything we can to reduce the
number of smuggled weapons coming into Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Ultramar Canada has begun the decommissioning of its
eastern passage refinery in Nova Scotia even though its request
to do so, which was filed with the Bureau of Competition Policy,
is in legal limbo and even though it is refusing to negotiate
seriously with a potential purchaser who could keep the plant
open and maintain competition as well as nearly 150 jobs.
Since it is clear by the time the bureau may get to rule that this
plant may be nothing but a pile of scrap metal, is there anything
the minister can do to expedite this situation and if not, why not?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me say that I share the member's concern for
the employees and their families at this Ultramar facility,
concerns that he and his colleagues from the Halifax area have
raised repeatedly with me over the last few months.
As he is aware, the undertakings to the director of
investigation and research by Ultramar are a contractual matter
to be dealt with by the director. Under the Competition Act the
director is an independent law enforcement officer and I cannot
interfere with that role.
The legal action initiated by the Attorney General of Nova
Scotia against the director and Ultramar has had the unfortunate
effect of preventing the director from carrying out his
responsibilities to deal with the issues of material adverse
change and the sale process relating to the refinery.
Given that the matter is before the courts and despite my real
concern for the employees involved, it is inappropriate for me to
comment further at this time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On October 20, the Deputy Prime Minister said in this House,
7102
and I quote: ``The activities of the CSE are in no way directed to
Canadians, including people involved in politics''.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the personal
information collected by the CSE is covered by a non-disclosure
exemption pursuant to Order in Council?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how could the Deputy Prime Minister be so positive
and rule out any possibility of spying on Canadian citizens,
when the exemption granted the CSE regarding non-disclosure
of personal information covers the entire category ``general
public'', in other words, everyone in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said Friday
about the CSE is true. They are covered by the Criminal Code.
They are subject to all Canadian laws, including the legislation
to which the hon. member referred. Otherwise, if they were not
covered, how could they be exempted?
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The
president of the CRTC has said that if private carriers do not
voluntarily choose to carry French CBC Newsworld then action
will be taken to impose it.
This decision is another example of misguided government
intervention. Why will the minister not let the free market
determine what Canadians want to see on television?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no Canadian government
intervention at all. There has been a commitment by the
president of the CBC and comments made by the president of the
CRTC. That is all.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this action is nothing more than a $32.7 million dollar tax grab
to add to the already burgeoning $1.1 billion CBC subsidy. The
federal government is making all Canadians pay for a system
they may not even use. How can the minister justify this?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague is very confused. A
while ago the CBC applied to provide a certain service on
specialized channels. The CRTC has granted that application.
This is in keeping with the law. The CRTC is an arm's length
agency and the Canadian government, including the minister, is
not interfering in the process. There is no grab there.
I can understand that our colleague would have difficulty
accepting all of this, because as she said in Hansard at page
6986: ``I agree with nothing''.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Canada and India signed a treaty on
legal assistance between the two countries on criminal matters.
My question for the Solicitor General is in the form of
concern on the part of some Canadians. They are concerned
whether the treaty will in any way impinge on their basic rights
and in any way subject them to more harassment.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mutual legal assistance agreement signed today
between Canada and India is not intended to infringe basic rights
or create harassment of anyone. It is designed to intensify
co-operation between law enforcement authorities in Canada
and in India. It is similar to agreements we already have with a
number of other countries.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime
Minister. It is about a contradiction in the social security green
paper. There is much rhetoric in the paper and from the
government generally about the importance of education, skills
upgrading and training, with which we all agree.
Could she indicate how her government's policy is designed
to double or triple tuition fees and put student loans through the
roof? How can that policy support the notion of Canadians
becoming more educated, better trained and having their skills
upgraded?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for the question because I believe him when he
says that he is interested in embarking on a real public exercise.
I know he will join me in congratulating the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who got a real vote of confidence from
the people of Canada with the survey on the weekend that
showed an overwhelming number of Canadians support real
change.
The minister is proposing a real change from the current
system whereby we would be putting dollars directly into the
hands of students. We do not want to see the post-secondary
system starved. At the present moment if we continue on the
downward course of cash transfers, that is exactly what is going
to happen.
7103
The minister has proposed a very ingenious way of delivering
dollars directly into the hands of students so they can go to the
post-secondary institution of their choice.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government claims that no illegal spying is going on. But we do
not know who is running the CSE, to whom it is accountable,
what kind of a budget it gets or the nature of the agreements it
enters into with foreign intelligence agencies.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the people of Quebec the
assurance that the upcoming referendum debate will not be
conducted under the aura of espionnage, as was the case
previously?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
himself stated over the weekend that he wants to fight the
referendum battle on the real issues, the issue of jobs, of
economic growth, of hope for Quebecers within Canada. As for
myself, I cannot wait for the separatists to have the courage to
call the referendum instead of making up stories about the CSE.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
After six months of co-operation and hard work by all
members of the standing committee including all parties in the
House, the report was tabled last week. Many of the
recommendations will be of great benefit to small businesses
across Canada.
Will the minister commit to the House when he will
implement the recommendations in the report?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I thank the hon. member and his colleagues in the
Reform Party as well as in the Bloc Quebecois for their work
together with members of the government on producing a report
which is virtually unanimous in all of its recommendations. It
makes a real contribution.
I agree with many of the recommendations in the report. I
hope to be able to act on some of them very quickly. We will of
course respond to the report in the normal course within the
timeframes required. Some will require more study; some will
require discussion with the Minister of Finance. But some, as I
said, I hope to implement very soon.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Shankarrao Bhaorao Chavan,
Minister of Home Affairs, India.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7103
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
60 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, October 24, is United Nations Day.
Forty-nine years ago, on October 24, 1945, the Charter of the
United Nations came into effect.
(1505)
This anniversary is cause for special celebrations as it marks
the beginning of the 50th year of operation of this organization.
I wish to thank all the Canadian men and women who have
contributed over the past 49 years to building this great
international organization. I am particularly grateful to those
who promoted its growth over the years, as events unfolded,
ensuring that it remain an organization concerned with meeting
the major challenges of modern-day and with working
relentlessly to promote international peace and security.
Allow me to take this opportunity to emphasize the
outstanding contribution of the men and women who risk their
lives to defend the principles the UN stands for. I am thinking in
particular of the 2,745 or so members of our Canadian Armed
Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police serving under the
UN flag in more than nine peacekeeping operations around the
world.
7104
[English]
I also thank the United Nations Association in Canada which
through its efforts has made the work of the United Nations
organization known to the Canadian general public.
During this year of celebrations which begins today the
association would be doubly involved on the Canadian scene.
On one hand, it will continue its daily work and, on the other
hand, via the Canadian committee for the United Nations 50th
anniversary, will co-ordinate the activities that will take place
throughout the year in commemoration of this important event.
The field of activity covered by the United Nations is the
cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy. The challenges facing
the UN in matters of peacekeeping, international security, the
promotion of democracy and the struggle for equality and
human rights are all considered vitally important in Canadian
eyes as well.
More than ever the community of nations and states needs a
strong, credible, international institution equipped with the
proper tools to face the challenge that awaits it at the dawn of the
21st century.
In closing, I ask all members of the House to support this
declaration since it reaffirms Canada's commitment to the
values that presided nearly half a century ago over the creation
of the United Nations organization, a multilateral institution
which today more than ever is a necessary part of
internationalism and its ideals.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I am pleased to announce
that today, October 24, is United Nations Day and marks the
50th anniversary of this international organization.
In a speech he gave in Montreal in May 1992, United Nations
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali reminded us that ``to
relate to the universal, one must first be true to oneself. That is
why sound internationalization of modern life must be based on
a solid sense of identity. Excessive or misunderstood
internationalization could destroy cultures and melt them into a
standard culture, from which the world has nothing to gain''.
This quote is particularly significant today, when the UN will
undergo-soon, we hope-an extensive reform. It faces many
challenges in the months and years to come.
One of these challenges is the emergence of many new
international players the UN will have to deal with. The radical
changes in the international geopolitical context have led to a
large increase in the number of players. Because of this, the new
problems facing the international community have become even
more complex and varied.
(1510)
There is, however, something good in this as it reflects the
reality, the will of the people.
We are pleased to note that the UN is concerned about a
standard culture replacing national identities at a time when the
Canadian government shamelessly claims that there is only one
culture in Canada, a so-called Canadian culture. It is partly to
fight this standardization process that the first action of a
Quebec having achieved sovereignty following a fully
legitimate process under international law will be to integrate
into the complex web of multilateral relations by applying to
join the UN.
In closing, I wish to express our sincere thanks to the United
Nations Association in Canada and to all Quebecers and
Canadians who helped shape the UN and make it so respectable
in our eyes.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
the 50th anniversary of the UN and on United Nations Day, as
Reform foreign affairs critic I would like to express my support
for the values and goals set forth by the original UN charter:
collective security, freedom, justice, and human development.
With each passing decade the universality of these values has
become more widely accepted and the UN has played a strong
part in this evolution. As we all know, Canada has played a
pivotal role in the strengthening and development of the United
Nations. Through our innovation in the field of peacekeeping,
our dedication to the principle of co-operative multilateralism
and our unfailing dedication to world peace and human
development, Canadians have provided a fine example for the
world community to follow.
I especially thank all those Canadians who have had a direct
hand in making the United Nations a success. We thank our
peacekeepers, past and present, our UN relief workers and all
other dedicated Canadians who have worked to promote the
principles and the goals of the UN.
A great deal of work remains, however, and the United
Nations must certainly reform in order to modernize and prepare
for the 21st century. This is work that must progress quickly.
Canada should play a leadership role in making sure that greater
efficiency, responsiveness, accountability and transparency are
achieved in coming years.
The United Nations can be made better. As members of the
House we should rededicate ourselves to making it happen. On
its 50th anniversary and United Nations Day let us all stand up
for the principles we cherish and for which the United Nations
has been fighting for 50 years: international peace and security,
human rights and justice, and contributing toward the social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
7105
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Burnaby-Kingsway is rising in his place. A request came from
the member for unanimous consent to be able to reply to the
topic we are presently covering. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the House for permitting me to respond. I will
be very brief.
[Translation]
I would like to join other hon. members in commemorating
United Nations Day and the 50th anniversary of the founding of
the United Nations.
[English]
On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I
join in paying tribute today particularly to those Canadian men
and women who have done so much to strengthen and build the
United Nations.
Our peacekeepers around the world-and Canada has played a
leading role in peacekeeping-have obviously made Canadians
very proud, as well as other Canadian men and women who are
active within the United Nations structure.
We certainly join with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in
urging significant reform of the United Nations. The concept of
a standing army that is able to respond at short notice is one that
we welcome. As well we believe there should be far more focus
on preventive diplomacy, on the opportunity to prevent crises
from developing into national and in some cases international
tragedies.
(1515 )
We also support the concept certainly of an international
tribunal to judge war criminals, to bring to justice those
responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Finally I want to say that we in this party strongly support the
concept of broadening the base of the United Nations to
encompass a United Nations parliamentary assembly. While we
recognize that this is a step that may take some time to develop,
certainly we want to encourage the foreign minister in the
actions that he is taking to develop support for this concept both
in Canada and globally.
In closing, once again I want to join in congratulating those
involved both in Canada, NGOs in Canada who support the
United Nations, and globally-
[Translation]
Congratulations to everyone on this 50th anniversary of the
United Nations and United Nations Day.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and present this petition
on behalf of citizens from coast to coast who are calling for
changes to the Young Offenders Act.
They want an act serious enough to deter young people from
committing crime and tough enough to provide real justice.
There are many Canadians from coast to coast who feel that
the Young Offenders Act does not meet its objectives and in
some instances actually contributes to an increase in crime by
weakening penalties against delinquents and does not deal with
repeat offenders in a strong fashion.
I have the pleasure of presenting this petition on behalf 284
petitioners.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by hundreds of petitioners from across Canada, and in particular
from my own constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, from Port
Moody, from Kamloops and a number of other jurisdictions.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that
the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from
terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with
dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at the time of their choice and subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure that the decision is free,
informed, competent and voluntarily.
7106
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today from
people in my area.
The first is signed by 40 petitioners from New Westminster,
Burnaby and the lower mainland. They join with many
Canadians who are greatly concerned over the stated
government agenda in amending the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
They request that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is signed by 131 residents of
communities in my area.
They present this petition in memory of Dawn Shaw. For their
sake I would like to go over some of the things they have
mentioned. They are concerned that the present justice system
fails to protect the children of our communities who are
increasingly becoming victims of sexual assault. Judges should
not be allowed to drop sexual assault charges because of a delay
in bringing a case to trial. Jail sentences for sexual assault
offenders should be lengthened for any person convicted of
sexual assault.
(1520 )
Community interests should be protected by permitting police
to take DNA samples from persons suspected of sexual assault.
Sexual offenders should undergo monitoring by police.
Pedophiles and sexual offenders should be required to register
with police in their community of residence and the police be
required to contact schools and agencies.
In memory of Dawn Shaw they request that Parliament enact
legislation to change the justice system to provide greater
protection for children from sexual assault and to assure
conviction of those offenders.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions today.
One is from several hundred constituents mostly from the
western end of my riding near Sault Ste. Marie, Echo Bay and
Desbarats. They wish to make the public aware of their deeply
held concerns over the subject of same sex legislation.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is from several dozen constituents from the Elliot Lake
area of my riding who wish Parliament to be aware of their deep
concerns over the subject of assisted suicide.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
before me four petitions that have been signed by 1,101 people
in my riding of Peace River. These petitions deal with the
subject of extending privileges to same sex couples.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval for same sex relationships or homosexuality.
They also ask that the human rights code not be amended to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I share the views of these petitioners.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Police Association I am
pleased to submit a petition with 356 signatures. These
petitioners from Manitoba call on the House of Commons to
repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure that
convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment of 25 years
not be able to apply for parole review after serving only 15 years
of their sentence.
I wholeheartedly support these petitioners.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents in
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who continue to be
concerned about the suggestion of increased legislation for
firearms owners.
The petitioners point out that current legislation regulates the
acquisition and possession of firearms through a complex,
expensive and rigorous regulatory scheme and the petitioners
are opposed to further legislation for firearms acquisition and
possession. They call on government to provide strict guidelines
and mandatory sentencing for the use or possession of a firearm
in the commission of a violent crime.
I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre. The petitioners request that current laws regarding
active euthanasia be enforced.
7107
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition requests that the Government of Canada not
amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the
undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human
Rights Act. Refusing to define the statement leaves
interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to
set.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today and I am glad you waited for me to the
last.
I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by 174 of
my constituents. Their concern has led them to sign a statement
which says that the majority of Canadians believe that same sex
couples should not receive the same privileges as heterosexual
couples. I share their belief that all Canadians are already
protected under the current human rights code and that including
the undefined phrase sexual orientation is both unnecessary and
unwise.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by 101 of
my constituents regarding the issue of abortion and now that an
abortion clinic is opening across the street from Parliament the
issue is receiving new life and I think a new profile once again.
My constituents request that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child.
I share their concern that there is currently no Canadian law
that addresses this serious issue.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents
of Logan Lake and a number of surrounding communities that
point out that Canada's mining industry is the mainstay of
employment in over 150 communities across Canada.
(1525 )
They point out that the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation
has proposed a 10-point plan of action to be addressed by both
the mineral industry and the Government of Canada to keep
mining in Canada.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to take action that will
generate employment in the mining sector, promote exploration,
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): On another matter, Mr.
Speaker, again petitioners mainly from Kamloops and
surrounding communities ask Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. McClelland): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would
ask the parliamentary secretary to the House leader if he would
be good enough to respond to Question No. 54 on the Order
Paper dated May 10. It is my understanding that such questions
are to be responded to within 45 days.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member did
star his question. Therefore, a response is required within 45
days.
In the particular case of his question, I have seen the draft
response to that question. I was unhappy with the response
because the response was a response, but not an answer.
I sent the reply back to the officials concerned and asked that
it be improved. A more fulsome answer I think is the word
mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women,
and I appreciate her assistance.
I know the hon. member will understand when I say that I sent
this question back for a more fulsome reply. When that is
forthcoming I will bring it to the House as quickly as possible,
and I thank him for raising the matter today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
10 minutes.
_____________________________________________
7107
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to be assured that
the hon. member for Simcoe Centre had time to conclude his
remarks before Question Period. If not, he would have a few
minutes to conclude and then he would be subject to five
minutes of questions or comments.
7108
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had
concluded my remarks just prior to Question Period but I would
be prepared to answer any questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Questions or comments?
Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to address the issue of social security reform. It is a
vital one for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Indeed, members of this House and the Canadian people face
a major challenge: updating our social security system. Based
on the opinion polls, I must say that it seems they are ready and
they recognize the need.
For 50 years, successive Liberal governments instituted a
series of social programs which shared the wealth of this
country among all Canadians.
[English]
Women have been particularly concerned about this as some
of those programs have helped them and their families, their
children, get back on their feet after a job loss. Others help some
Canadians get training and an education, while others still have
come to the rescue of Canadians who have nowhere else to turn.
However, the world has changed faster than our programs
have and the system has not kept pace with the dramatic
transformation in the economy, in technology, in the Canadian
family, in global competition and in our fiscal situation.
Canadian society is still changing. Women play a much larger
role in the workforce and in the paid economy than they did
some 40 or 50 years ago. The needs of other groups such as
ethnocultural communities, indigenous peoples and the disabled
have also evolved rapidly over these years.
The workplace is in transformation. As familiar jobs
disappear people are forced to work in unfamiliar situations.
Many are joining the growing non-standard workforce of part
time, temporary home workers or workers who work in their
homes and contract work. These people have to do without the
security of traditional company pensions and benefit plans.
(1530)
As we shift to knowledge based industries, people need more
education, training and continued learning. I have witnessed this
transformation in my riding of Mount Royal. During the last
recession we experienced our share of factory closures where
people saw jobs and some permanent positions banished
forever.
In many ways the riding of Mount Royal is a reflection of
Canadian society. We are a diverse group of people of all
religious, ethnocultural and age groups who live and work
together in both official languages. For the most part we have
worked together in harmony, peacefully with good productive
lives full of hope and fulfilment.
Now my constituents are doing their best to adapt to our
country's new economic reality. Many are succeeding but too
many are falling through the cracks. I know that my riding of
Mount Royal is not an exception to the rule. The new challenge
people face there exists in every major city across the land.
Since 1981 the number of Canadians on social assistance has
doubled to just over three million. Canada assistance plan or
CAP expenditures have increased from $2.6 billion to $8 billion
annually. Clearly the social support network has not masked
societal changes which have occurred over the past 30 years.
The bottom line is that we are facing a fundamental shift in the
way we live and work. Therefore we must redesign our social
security program to respond to that shift, building on Canadian
values of compassion and shared opportunity. At the same time
we must ensure they remain sustainable and affordable.
Combined spending on unemployment insurance and social
assistance has grown as a proportion of Canada's economic
output by more than 75 per cent between 1972 and 1992. Such
increases are simply not sustainable. The federal government
now spends over $38 billion for all social security programs, but
it has to spend $40 billion for interest on our debt.
We are sending that money for the most part to New York,
Tokyo and Berlin. This is not the way we want to get our system
under control. If we do not get our social security system and
others under control, foreign markets will decide what our
social programs should look like. That is not what Canadians
want.
We want to be able to design our programs for ourselves.
Therefore I commend my colleague, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, for having the courage to undertake
such a fundamental reform of Canada's social programs. I echo
his invitation to all Canadians to get involved in this very
important discussion, address the green paper, get a copy and
work hard to give us the kinds of answers that will reflect their
values. I applaud his insistence that our new system should be
affordable, effective and fair.
To live up to the minister's commitment we will need social
programs that reflect the reality of rural, urban and metropolitan
communities. Our social programs must protect those most in
need: people who cannot work, people on low incomes in
families that are struggling to get by, people who face barriers
due to disability or chronic illness, and especially children
living in poverty.
We must improve the welfare of our children because 1.2
million of them presently live in poverty. This is totally
unacceptable. Children are poor because their mothers are poor.
We must therefore ensure that women get the opportunity to
train for all types of jobs. We must also help those who rely on
welfare to be moved off that cycle.
7109
Too many people spend years on social assistance, even
though with the right kind of employment and training
opportunities they could find work; but they need a proper
support system. Too many disadvantaged families get caught
in the welfare trap for the very good reason that they seem
better off there. That is really not a very sensible way to have
the system structured.
(1535)
Our future prosperity requires that all people contribute to the
best of their potential in order to fulfil their dreams. We have a
responsibility to those who depend on social programs to move
from dependence to full participation, for the best social
security is a job. The essence of our reform is to get people back
to work.
We believe this is the shortest route to prosperity. A strong
economy is crucial to the independence and equality of
Canadians outside the mainstream, especially women, newly
arrived Canadians and other groups.
[Translation]
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we must make some difficult decisions. Our
choices today will determine the opportunities available
tomorrow. The government's No. 1 priority is economic growth
and job creation. To succeed in this mission, we must act on
many fronts. The reform of social security is one of our most
important initiatives in this regard. The reform of our social
security system must be based on equality for all Canadians. We
absolutely must listen to the communities which for too long
have been marginalized in our society: native peoples,
newcomers, the disabled and women. The nature and scope of
the options we are proposing are fundamental. It is therefore
imperative that these groups participate in the consultation
process under way.
[English]
I strongly urge all groups to participate, particularly women's
groups and ethnocultural organizations. I send them a personal
message of encouragement. With this reform we will have the
opportunity to help shape the future of Canada's social programs
together. I believe that groups owe it to themselves and to their
constituencies to make the most of this occasion. I urge them not
to miss the chance to address this consultation document.
One of the single most important factors to take into account
as we examine the green paper is the impact the reforms will
have on women. Why? It is because women represent 52 per cent
of the population in Canada. Women make an enormous
contribution to our society and to our economy, and the future of
our children lies in the hands of our women. Today I urge
members to consider the important ways to make sure that our
new social security system works particularly for women and
children who are our future.
First, we must ensure that the voices of women are heard in
the consultation process, in our riding and at the committee, for
women's issues are fundamentally society's issues. They are
issues that concern every one of us in the House. Women are not
special interest groups. They represent diverse backgrounds
with a full range of interests and concerns.
To succeed in our mission it is essential that we get their
guidance. They have to tell us what kind of social programs
would give them a sense of security, a sense of well-being, and
contribute to their progress toward equality. Women's groups
and organizations have been a most important catalyst for
progress on women's equality and to ensure our full partnership
and participation in the growth and development of the Canada
of tomorrow.
As a result we will all benefit from their work. We have to
ensure that organizations representing women's concerns,
groups that have limited resources and broad mandates, have
sufficient time and support to participate in this critical
exercise. The Minister of Human Resources Development has to
be thanked for facilitating this process.
Everyone must be able to participate in this consultation
process because every Canadian will be affected by the final
result. The Minister of Human Resources Development has
already spoken with many organizations. He and I will pursue
discussions with both women's groups and organizations
concerned with poverty.
The second important component to building a social security
program that serves everyone is to create a system that is gender
sensitive. This means a system that recognizes that women and
men in Canada experience life differently.
The discussion paper on social security reform outlines the
key life streams of Canadians: work, learning and security.
These are areas where women have different and too often
disadvantaged experiences. They have a different rhythm of
attachment to the workforce.
(1540)
We must make sure changes and initiatives we suggest in
these areas reflect that difference, namely child bearing, care for
the ill and care for the elderly. The options for reform provide
many openings for change. With gender sensitive responses
those openings can become doors of opportunity for women and
for society. Women may benefit from a review of the
unemployment insurance that is sensitive to those in
non-standard employment.
We all know the workforce dominated by women and younger
Canadians is currently excluded from unemployment insurance
coverage. Employment services which are more client centred
and user friendly would be better tailored for women.
7110
Enabling Canadians to benefit from lifelong learning is
particularly important to women, especially for those who
curtailed their own education and training early in life and/or
left the workforce to raise their children, an important function
and role in society. Child care is particularly relevant to women
whose responsibility for family too often limits their own
opportunities.
These examples demonstrate how we can look at every reform
option with gender lens to see how it may affect the lives of
women.
Lastly today I want to emphasize that to address child poverty
we must improve the economic status of women in Canada. The
reality is that throughout their entire lives women in Canada are
at a higher risk of poverty than men. Large numbers of women
live in poverty at some time during their lives. We must
recognize the complex interplay of factors that put women and
children at risk. Women are still largely responsible for the
unpaid work of child care, elder care and housework in the
family.
Indeed women are often in a situation that we describe as the
sandwich generation. They support their aged parents as well as
their children. However women are also increasingly
responsible for earning income to keep the family above the
poverty line either in two-income families or as heads of lone
parent households.
There is a segment of the Canadian women's population that
has done quite well. I hope we will see some wonderful
improvements. Those are women who have had the benefit of
higher education and have benefited from the role that has been
played by women's organizations to move toward equality,
access and breaking the glass ceiling. They are few and far
between and there is much left to do. They can contribute to this
discussion as well.
Women remain at a disadvantage in the workplace largely for
reasons related to having and raising children. In 1992 women in
Canada averaged only 72 cents for every dollar that men made in
the workforce. It is a catch 22 for women and it is a recipe for
economic dependence and poverty.
A 1990 report entitled ``Women and Poverty Revisited'' by
the National Council of Welfare concluded that the link between
motherhood and poverty was clear. According to that report the
only safeguard which stands between most married women and
poverty is their husbands' incomes. That is not very reassuring.
[Translation]
In fact, the group which is likely to be hit hardest by poverty
in Canada is single-parent families headed by women. In 1991,
82 per cent of one-parent families were headed by women.
Children who live with a single mother are five times more
likely to be poor than those who live with two parents.
Nevertheless, we cannot ask women to remain in precarious
family situations just for economic reasons, especially when the
woman and children suffer domestic violence or are threatened
with it. We must also strive to avoid stereotyping single
mothers on welfare.
A study of 150 such women in 1991 by Professor Carolyne A.
Gorlick of the University of Western Ontario showed that their
average age was 32. Nearly three quarters of them had already
worked full-or part-time. Forty-one per cent had a university
education.
(1545)
Most had one or two children and almost all had some
education or training. As the Prime Minister said so well in
Fredericton recently, ``The reform is not a question of figures
and statistics. It concerns human beings and the challenges they
must face every day of their life''. So how does one help a single
mother make the transition from welfare to employment?
[English]
Yes we need to support this woman with education and
training.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was in this situation
earlier this day. I know that it is a subject matter of great interest
to both sides of the House and 10 minutes is sometimes not a
great deal of time on such a substantive issue.
If we could ask the co-operation of members to let the
secretary of state conclude her remarks, we will waive the
question and comment period.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize we had gone
that long. I appreciate the good grace in this House.
A woman with this kind of education and training upon her
return to the work force will likely get a job that is lower paid, of
lower status and less secure. She may need language training or
Canadian accreditation for education and training from another
country. She most likely needs adequate enforced child support
payments from her child's father. She will definitely need child
care. She needs a workplace that allows her to balance work and
family responsibility and she needs social security that
recognizes she will live several years longer than most men.
[Translation]
Women have worked for decades to become economically
independent, at work and at home. Whatever we do, we must not
undermine this hard-won progress to individual financial
self-sufficiency. We must recognize the connections between
women's economic dependency, inequality and the violence
done to them.
7111
[English]
We must support women's individual ability to have control
over their own lives.
In closing, I want to emphasize that Canadians believe in the
dignity of work and we believe in sharing and in compassion. As
a society we recognize the interdependence of economic and
social well-being. We know that we cannot have one without the
other.
Canada, as it is admired around the world for the way we
balance these factors of our collective lives, wishes to continue
in that effort. We have worked through times of wrenching
change before in our history and we can do it again.
Let me quote our Prime Minister once again, because I think it
is important: ``Change does not mean changing our values on
principles. It means changing programs to meet new needs and
new realities in accordance with our values and our principles so
together we can build a social security system that includes all
Canadians and that contributes to a very strong economy. And
together we can build a prosperous nation where difference is
valued and everyone is included''.
After all, Canadians both men and women, want security,
dignity and the opportunity to make a decent living for
themselves and for their families. All Canadians want to build a
brighter future for our children and ensure that they have every
opportunity to prosper.
An effective fair, affordable social security system for all of
us will certainly help. We look forward to everyone's
participation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): After listening to an
opinion, I think I may have been a little too harsh when I
suggested that we eliminate the period for questions and
comments, especially since a minister had the floor at the time.
Consequently, I will allow one question.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State spoke from the heart. The problem is that the
reform will primarily affect women and not in a positive way.
On the contrary, it will have a negative impact on their situation.
Here are just a few examples. The first ones affected by the
two levels for UI purposes will be women who, in many cases,
hold insecure term jobs-since these are more recent jobs, as
you know. Women will be the first ones affected. They will also
be the ones affected by the recommendation that the spouse's
salary be taken into account when determining UI benefits.
Women are also the ones who will be affected by the cuts to
social assistance. Moreover, women will not want to get further
into debt to get an education.
(1550)
So, women are directly affected and, in spite of the very
sensitive comments made by the Secretary of State who has a
very kind heart, the fact is that the main objective of this reform
is to reduce budgets by $15 billion over five years. The
government may send invitations and hold countless
discussions, the fact is that women are the first victims of that
reform. The government helps women in a small way but harms
them in a very big way.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first it is not true that the
government will cut $15 billion, which I believe is the amount
mentioned by the hon. member. This is not true at all and I think
the Minister of Human Resources Development provided the
real answer. If you read his answer in Hansard, you will see that
this is not true.
Second, I will admit that there are problems for women and
that these problems represent a big challenge. However, the
current situation is simply unacceptable. Everything that is in
place right now prevents women from moving ahead; it only
keeps them in poverty. What I want and what this government
wants is to hold an in-depth consultation exercise, especially
with women. We want to get their opinion and find out what
changes they would like to see. We simply cannot ask women to
keep putting up with the system as it is currently structured.
Women cannot rejoin the workforce when they are on welfare,
because all the-I was going to say ``les stupidités'', but I do not
know if you say that in French-constraints related to CAP do
not give women a chance to go back to work.
[English]
It makes them poorer rather than enables them to become
active participants in the job market. I would say to all members
in this House and in particular to a fervent advocate for fairness
for women-
[Translation]
I say to the hon. member opposite, to answer her question, that
she is right. However, this reform will improve the plight of
women; it will not make things worse. I have always insisted
that all our initiatives be of benefit to women. If this is not the
case, I want women to come and tell us. We will then take a
closer look at the issue. I am asking you to help us bring about
constructive changes for the future of all Canadian women.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise today and compliment the Minister of
Human Resources Development for his commitment and
contribution in proceeding with the government's job and
growth agenda.
7112
The minister in his discussion paper has given us an
opportunity to participate in the revamping of our social
security system. We must bring our social programs in line with
the realities of today, realities that are tough and constraining,
realities that our society can no longer ignore.
Close to 80 per cent of Canadians agree that Canada's social
programs are in need of major reform. We are inviting all
Canadians to consider and to advise us on how we can improve
our programs and make them suitable for the 1990s and into the
next century.
[Translation]
The Canadian social security system was created a number of
years ago to meet the specific needs of a bygone era. Today, the
needs are different because society and economic parameters
have changed considerably.
(1555 )
For example, when the unemployment insurance program was
originally developed, it was to give temporary relief to people
who had lost their jobs. However, today, Canadians must adapt
to an economy which requires fewer workers. Consequently, the
Canadian government must provide its people with a different
support system for all those who want to enter or re-enter a
highly competitive job market.
[English]
It is clear to all Canadians that the necessity for change not
only applies to our unemployment insurance program but to all
our national social programs. The social security system that has
provided support to Canadians for decades must now be
modernized. Our social programs must be redefined according
to the economic and social changes that have affected our
society.
However, despite the government's strong determination to
pursue a thorough reform of our social safety net, it will strongly
abide by the fundamental principles that have guided Liberal
governments in the past. Hence, the first and foremost priority
of our government is to preserve our traditional and cherished
values of justice, of tolerance, of compassion for those who are
most vulnerable, while providing to all Canadians the
opportunity for the dignity of work.
In helping Canadians to get good jobs we have to consider that
nearly half of all new jobs require 16 years or more of education
and training. Yet we still have 30 per cent of students dropping
out before graduating from high school.
This is one of many contradictions that must be eradicated for
the benefit of our social fabric and our economic future. We
need to supply better job counselling for unemployment
insurance claimants. We realize that basic skills training is
essential for any job and that classroom and workplace training
is also a key element for the revival of our workforce.
Canadians think that our social programs are too bureaucratic,
inefficient, wasteful and that too many people are put in the
position of becoming dependent on them. We are not helping
anyone by assuming that some people cannot do anything to
improve their state in life. That is exactly what some of our
social programs do and it must be stopped.
Our social security system must protect everyone in need.
Among them are the people who cannot work, people with
disabilities or chronic illness, low income families and children
who live in poverty.
In the discussion paper the minister outlines four main
objectives for reform: helping Canadians find and keep
employment; providing support for those who are most in need;
ensuring programs are fair, affordable and effective, while
eliminating waste; creating a social environment that fosters
independence and mutual responsibility.
[Translation]
We want to reform our social system to protect the values we
universally hold true, namely equality, freedom, compassion,
and mutual support. As a society built on these principles, we
have the duty to give all the help we can to those who need it the
most.
This means that we must share our resources more fairly.
Canada is abundantly rich and, in this, is the envy of the world.
Unfortunately, too few Canadians benefit from our country's
wealth. This is precisely what we want to rectify with the help of
all the people.
[English]
We as a government need to address the issues of an economy
with fewer jobs, a society with an aging population and a
shrinking middle class, and an increased poverty level among
our population. I want to take the opportunity to remind the
House and Canadians that those who are most in need of social
reform are those who are the poorest in our country. That is
women and it is children.
(1600)
We have to look at the difficulties that women have to face in
this new era. Women make up the majority of lone parents and
60 per cent of them live below the poverty line. Women have to
work hard to support their families but face unfair wage gaps
compared to their male counterparts. They are still very poorly
represented in well paid occupations and positions.
Tragically women who do earn a living, however
inadequately paid, may consider themselves lucky because
two-thirds of the work of women is unpaid. This reality is
unacceptable in a country where equality has always been a
basic element of our national values.
7113
For all these reasons Canadian women are entitled to receive
appropriate assistance. For instance affordable child care is
more than ever a necessity, not a luxury. Our government
recognizes the urgency of the matter and is committed to work
jointly with the provinces to increase the number of quality
child care spaces across Canada.
Raising the standard of living of women is of crucial
importance for the fate of many poor children across the
country. We must act now to ease the life of over one million
children living on welfare. The number of poor children in our
society is increasing not decreasing with our current social
programs. Obviously we need an improvement.
I want to say as one who has worked with women and young
people living in the social security system that they are the first
to recognize the need for changes in the programs, they are the
first to recognize the barriers that prevent them from getting the
job they need, from getting the training they need. Our system is
set up in such a way that to do so they have to jeopardize the
financial security of their children and there are not very many
women who will do that. Those are the barriers we have to get
rid of.
There are other groups in our society still coping with the lack
of adequate services, people with disabilities. These people too
need greater access to training and to employment related
services.
If there is one commitment in this reform, it is the
commitment of our government to create opportunity for every
one of our citizens who can contribute to the building of our
country.
I conclude by reminding the House and Canadians that this is
a participatory process. There are a number of recommendations
and options in the paper that the minister released two weeks
ago. It is important that all Canadians inform themselves of
what is in those papers and engage in the dialogue that will
happen over the next few months.
This coming Saturday, October 29, in Ottawa West I will be
having an all day community consultation. I know that these
same kinds of consultations are going on right across the
country. With my few remaining seconds I simply remind every
organization and every individual out there that their
participation in this dialogue is crucial to the future of this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member referred several times to the problem of women. She
was very sympathetic to their needs, but what she said is a far
cry from what actually happens. What the government is
proposing is a direct contradiction of the principles of equality,
justice, tolerance and fairness mentioned by the hon. member,
especially when we are talking about a group of women with
even more problems, and I am referring to immigrant women, a
group I know very well.
I think that when the Liberals were in the opposition, they
were far more consistent. Today, they are practising the exact
opposite of what they preached in the opposition. It is not a wise
decision on the part of a political party like the Liberal Party, the
main party in Canada.
(1605)
My question is this: social programs were introduced when
Canada was not as rich as it is now. This was years and years ago.
Today, Canada is much richer, so why attack these programs
today? Why not get the money to finance these programs from
the rich and thus avoid cutting the social benefits for which
women have fought for generations?
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deal
with women's issues. I think it is very important to stress what I
said in my speech. This is a discussion. We have made a number
of proposals. I think the question raised by the hon. member is
very important and that it has an impact on women and on
children as well, to some extent. How can we have a better
system? That is a topic for discussion and dialogue with
Canadian women. We want to find out what they think about the
impact of certain options.
I hope the hon. member will have a chance to discuss the
existing system with his constituents who are now on welfare.
When he talks to women who are in the system, he will hear
about the problems in the present system and the problems that
keep them in a state of dependency.
I am not certain that I agree that in the past, when Liberal
governments introduced our social programs, the country was
poorer. It would be very easy for me to say the problem was
created by the previous government, but I will not say that.
We are now in a situation where we spend 40 cents out of
every dollar on servicing the debt and, of course, it is
unacceptable that we cannot spend these 40 cents on something
that would be of far greater benefit to the country and to
Canadians.
However, I think it is just a matter of using the resources we
have to improve the situation for the people who are in the
system, and not leaving them high and dry.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
number of points here but I am going to have to limit it to one
because of time. I will do that.
I want to caution the House and the government particularly
on the use of statistics. A long time ago I read a book How to Lie
with Statistics. We often hear that a large proportion of Canada's
children live in poverty.
7114
I deplore children living in true poverty. I need to give
members very quickly this anecdote. My son who now is in
Rwanda was in southern Sudan a number of years ago. He was
working with a relief agency there. When he wrote home he
said: ``Dad, Mom, we are having great success here. Whereas
there used to be 160 children a day dying of starvation, we have
brought the number down to 60''. He said: ``That is a great
success''. Then he added, referring to our community back
home: ``Of course by Sherwood Park standards, we have not
quite met it yet''.
That is so true. In this country, we do not know what poverty
is. The statistic that is used by Statistics Canada is that a family
is in poverty if its family income is less than half of the median
income.
The irony of that is that if the average family income in
Canada were to reach $100,000 then anyone who makes less
than $50,000 would be considered by that definition to be in
poverty. Yes, they are making considerably less than the average
peers around them but they are not in true poverty. I think we
need to be very, very careful.
(1610)
Poverty is also a state of mind. I grew up in a very poor family
but we were never poor in the truest sense of the word. We
always had the basic necessities of life and we had a family with
loads of love. When you have that it is really all that a person
needs.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to
this question. Some of my colleagues will remember that it was
a former Tory chair of the committee on employment and
immigration that tried to redefine poverty and pretend that
poverty went away.
Let me tell the member opposite about the people in my
community, the children who start school behind the eight ball
because they are identified as poor the minute they walk into the
school. They are not as well fed. They do not have the bright and
shiny hair. They do not have the nice clothes. Their education is
immediately crippled from the day they walk into school.
If we pretend that poverty in this country is not really a
problem we will not solve that problem. The victims of not
solving that problem are our children. Poor children are much
more likely to be involved in serious accidents, to fall seriously
ill, to commit suicide, to die, to drop out of school and to end up
in jail. What more information do we need to solve the problem
of our poor?
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the issue
of social programs is of particular concern to me, as a former
labour lawyer in Chile, a 19-year veteran of the FTQ and the
member of Parliament for a modest riding in Montréal-Nord. I
must admit that I am very concerned, following the release, on
October 5, of the Liberal government consultation paper entitled
``Improving Social Security in Canada''.
The title of this paper bears little relation to its contents. It is
at best an ultraconservative paper. Even the Mulroney
government had never dared go as far as this Liberal government
of Jean Chrétien and Lloyd Axworthy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would just like to
remind the members that we are supposed to refer to one another
by our titles. For example, the right hon. Prime Minister, the
hon. Minister of Human Resources Development, and so on. I
know that we cannot always show the same consideration to
former MPs, but as far as those currently in office are concerned,
we must maintain this respect relationship.
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the government of
the present Prime Minister and his Minister of Human
Resources Development. Now, I must add that, regarding social
programs, the Liberals are doing exactly the opposite of what
they preached when they were in opposition. I am for social
security reform, but true reform designed to improve social
security, not to destroy it.
It took decades to build our social security system in Canada.
Now, this federal government is trying to dismantle it in a matter
of months. The real hidden agenda of the instigators of this
reform is to bring the deficit down. Since coming to power, the
Liberal government has done its utmost to balance its budget on
the back of the disadvantaged. This paper proposes very drastic
changes in unemployment insurance as well as in how funding
of social assistance and post-secondary education are funded,
changes designed to save $15 billion over the next five years.
In so doing, the government is hoping to reduce the national
debt to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product within three
years. There is nothing in this paper about the real challenge
facing Canada today: job creation. No effort is made to
eliminate the very expensive jurisdictional overlaps between the
federal government and the provinces.
(1615)
Instead of looking at a fairer taxation system for tax havens,
family trusts, etc., he attacks programs protecting the most
vulnerable in our society. The government blames the crisis on
the poor, the unemployed, the people on welfare, and that is
outrageous.
The union movement which fought for and instigated the
introduction and improvement of the social security system for
generations is now unanimous in opposing and condemning the
reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
7115
In Quebec, the presidents of the three central labour
bodies-Clément Godbout of the FTQ, Gérald Larose of the
CNTU, and Lorraine Pagé of the CEQ-vigorously denounced
the federal government's intentions and are preparing a major
attack and a joint brief to be tabled soon as part of the
consultations held by the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development. Together, these three unions represent
over 700,000 Quebec workers.
For its part, the 2.2-million-strong Canadian Labour
Congress has launched a vigorous fight against the proposed
reform. Its president, Robert White, criticized the discussion
paper because it does not set out any job-creation measures. He
added, ``The government seems to think that by training workers
and cutting their UI benefits, these people will find non-existent
jobs as if by magic. The concept of compulsory work or enforced
volunteerism outlined in this paper is an insult to the hundreds
of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs''.
The thousands of unemployed workers and welfare recipients,
as well as all the people I consulted in my riding of Bourassa,
strongly oppose cutting and dismantling our social programs.
Montréal-Nord is a city whose population is getting more
diversified, older and poorer. In the last two years, the amount of
social benefits has increased by 21 per cent, while 34 per cent of
all welfare applications are associated with job losses. The
unemployment rate in Montréal-Nord has reached 30 per cent
including welfare recipients able to work.
My riding and the City of Montreal are now among the largest
concentrations of poor people in Canada. Those hardest hit by
this situation are members of visible minorities, young people,
women and seniors, who are very numerous in my riding.
I take this opportunity to denounce VIA Rail's recent decision
to immediately eliminate 478 jobs including 273 in Montreal. In
December 1993, the company had already announced that it
would lay off 250 workers. Most of these workers are members
of the Canadian Auto Workers, which is my union. These people
want to work.
[English]
These people have decided to work and to be gainfully
employed. They are particularly worried about the proposed
modification to the unemployment insurance system. The
people of my riding are concerned about the intention of the
federal government to take into account their spouse's income to
calculate the level of allowance.
If enacted these reforms would prove to be very harmful for
women and will endanger the progress toward equality which an
entire generation has achieved.
Unemployment insurance is one of the pillars of our social
security system. It is entirely financed by the contributions of
workers and employers. Employees pay premiums to insure
themselves against loss of income in the event of the loss of a
job. Thus the government has neither the authority nor the
justification to take from these workers the compensation that is
rightfully theirs.
(1620)
[Translation]
We must say that, on the whole, Canada's social programs are
already below the average for industrialized countries. In fact,
Canada spends $18 billion less every year on social
expenditures than the average of OECD countries. This shortfall
shows up especially in child care services, the public pension
plan and disability insurance. In several areas, Canada's social
programs are below international standards.
For all these reasons, like my party, the Bloc Quebecois, the
labour movement and the people of my riding, Montréal-Nord, I
oppose and strongly denounce the social security reform
advocated by the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to see the United Nations continues to
demonstrate our position to the rest of the world: Canada is the
best country in the world in which to live.
When was the last time the government gave the opposition a
chance to discuss social policy reform? When was the last time
any reform policy met the approval of 91 per cent of the
population? When was the last time one year after coming to
power a Prime Minister enjoyed 42 per cent popular support,
personal support? When was the last time the opposition leader
received only 7 per cent popular support?
Obviously, that says something about the good job the
government is doing.
This morning I was in my riding of Don Valley North. We just
had the ground breaking ceremonies for one of the projects that
will create jobs in my riding. It is one of four projects and it will
create about 111 brand new jobs. These people will have food on
their tables. They will be able to feed their children, not go on
welfare or UI. That is the job the government is doing to provide
Canadians better opportunities and a better future.
The previous government had a committee, as was referred to
earlier, which was to redefine poverty, especially poverty
among children. The way the committee wanted to do it was to
redefine the whole income process so, poof, in one sentence it
would take away 50 per cent of poverty among children. That is
not the way we are going to do business. We want to listen to
other Canadians so they have a positive input and not be
negative about Canada. We want to change the system the best
way we know how. That is how we are going to do it.
7116
I have not heard anything from hon. members opposite that
is positive about Canada, always negative and negative. I want
to repeat my colleague's statement, they always see the glass
half empty. We see the glass half full and we are going to fill
it all the way up.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, I was positive like my colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois; we want to maintain the social programs
Canada has. The only problem we have with the party opposite is
that we want to finance them by taking money where it can be
found, from the rich, family trusts and tax shelters. This is the
money that must be used to fund social programs. We are very
positive on that.
The UN has declared Canada to be the best country in the
world; I think that the UN is taking a macro-economic view, but
if the UN looks at Canada today, it must realize that there are
huge variations. When I came to Canada 20 years ago, it was a
more egalitarian society. Today, the rich are getting richer while
the poor are getting poorer. Among these poor people are the
children whom the hon. member mentioned. But there are poor
children in Canada because there are poor families, parents
without work, women who are disadvantaged in society; that is
the cause of child poverty.
(1625)
I think that we are very positive and during the consultation,
we will make suggestions and a great contribution to the
development of human resources, but on the good side, not in
the direction the government is going.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to discuss the impact of the social program reform for women.
As the Official Opposition critic for the status of women, I will
specifically deal with the impact of the proposals tabled by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
The discussion paper includes several measures which are
totally unacceptable to Canadians. The first one relates to the UI
program. The proposed reform will result in reduced UI benefits
for women. Indeed, if a person living with another one loses his
job, the benefits paid to that person will be reduced when his
spouse earns a good salary. Since, according to statistics,
women earn about 70 per cent of what men make, they will be
directly affected by that measure, because their benefits will be
diminished and may even be reduced to nil.
This proposal is totally unacceptable. How can we implement
such a policy and claim at the same time, on the international
scene, that we promote the right of women to economic equality,
as the Canadian government did at the Nairobi conference and
will do again this fall in Beijing?
This is an insidious form of discrimination. Either we really
try to promote the right of women to equality by ensuring that
domestic policies are fair and take into account the situation of
women, or else we stop claiming to be a world leader in that
field. The government should make up its mind. At the very
least, it should ensure that it does not increase, through
irresponsible policies, women's dependence on men, thus
perpetuating a context which is conducive to violence and
exploitation.
Another proposal in the minister's discussion paper aims at
reducing access to benefits. Under this proposal, people who are
frequently unemployed, mainly those who have insecure jobs
and many women are in this category, would see their benefits
reduced. Again, this would primarily affect women, since they
hold most of the seasonal jobs.
The document raises another question regarding
unemployment insurance. I am referring to contributions made
to the program. Indeed, one wonders if women who are
ineligible for benefits because of their spouses' incomes will be
forced to continue to contribute to the UI program, thus putting
an even greater burden on the family income. In our opinion,
this would be a hidden increase in the tax burden and would
violate the promises made by the current Prime Minister.
Let us now turn to another aspect of the reform which
deserves a very close look, namely the financing of
post-secondary education. Here again, women are experiencing
a setback. On October 6, the minister stated: ``Let us put a lot
more money back into the system. Let us make a much broader,
wider system of grants and loans available to students of all
kinds everywhere. They can get access to our system on a basis
where they can repay the money based on their incomes''.
A reduction in the transfer payments to the provinces will
have a direct impact on provincial governments. These
governments will have to choose between dealing with this new
tax burden or transferring it to the universities. Either we
increase taxes to pay the higher costs or the universities will
have to significantly raise tuition fees, which will increase the
students' level of indebtedness. This would be a setback,
especially in Quebec, where we have succeeded in helping
poorer students to attend college or university. Also, this will
have a direct impact on women. As we know, women are poorer
than men.
If we go back to the system where only the rich can afford
post-secondary education, the percentage of female university
students and graduates will drop considerably.
(1630)
You do not have to be a statistician to know that the level of
education is directly related to the level of income. Is this how
we will reduce the dropout rate, by dashing the hopes of poorer
students wanting to go to university and to improve their lot? Is
7117
this how the Minister of Human Resources Development will
improve economic opportunities for women?
I think the minister will only encourage students to increase
their indebtedness level in order to be able to further their
education. This is how we will end up with a two-tier university
system like in the United States: a classy private system and a
poor public one. There are no projects, guidelines or
instructions on expanding day-care services, except for a
statement that eventually, resources will be invested in this area.
This is a major omission, and it reflects this government's
failure to consider the daily needs of women.
How can women expect to go back to work or function
satisfactorily in the work place, when every day they are faced
with the problem of a shortage of day-care for their children?
Women would have to earn at least $10 per hour to be able to pay
for day-care and the transportation costs involved when a
woman works and has children. Women would have to earn more
than $10 an hour, so they can afford satisfactory day-care for
their children while they are at work.
Many women, especially single mothers, will leave their jobs
or will not be promoted because they do not have access to
day-care or their incomes are not sufficient. One wonders what
this government's priorities are. Are they about buying missiles
for $400,000 each, so the Canadian army can make a good
showing at competitions in Florida, or intercepting private
communications through the Communications Security
Establishment, an activity estimated to cost a modest $250
million annually?
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show
more concern about programs financing than his leader, who
said he was not worried about the expenditures cleverly hidden
in the Public Accounts? Would there not be a case for investing
in our children's future rather than in unproductive activities?
Where are this government's priorities? What needs is it willing
to finance? One also wonders why, in preparing its reform
proposals, the government failed to consider the unequal
economic status of men and women and try to correct it.
We condemn these reform proposals which are a disaster for
female workers, students and women who are frequently
unemployed, proposals that contain no job creation strategy.
Women need well-paying, steady jobs, but the only job creation
measure the government has introduced since it was elected, the
infrastructures program, has failed to increase women's
participation in the labour market since these jobs did not draw
on women's more traditional skills.
Women do not need any more talk about training, when
training is a dead end since there are no jobs available. Women
need real social reform, with measures that will help make them
equal economic partners, not measures that merely consolidate
the usual pattern of dependency and dropping out. Mr. Minister,
some major changes will be necessary if women are to get their
rightful place in the labour market.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, precisely, as the member for
Quebec mentioned, I believe that the aim of this exercise, this
opinion poll, this Canada-wide consultation is to see if we can
find solutions to some rather pressing problems. One of the
problems she talked about is the situation of single mothers.
Very often, what they earn is not enough to provide for their
children.
I believe that there is a lot to do in this area and I am the first
one to say that women have been dealt a raw deal by the present
system, an opinion which I think is shared by most members of
this House. Women are penalized if they want to get a job or
train in order to find a better job.
(1635)
I would like to know if the member recognizes that, at least,
we are trying to help women with their job search so that they
can have a decent income.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, maybe the government thinks it
is making an effort. But between its rhetoric and reality, there is
a world of difference. I believe that we must be wary of some of
the proposals put forward in the working paper, especially with
respect to women. I believe that when you revert to taking into
account the spouse's salary to determine eligibility to
unemployment insurance, this is a real step backward.
I believe that if this suggestion is accepted by the Liberal
government, we will not be helping women. Most frequently
unemployed people are women, therefore this is what I call a
double standard. On one hand, the government allows tax
havens such as family trusts, and on the other, it says that it is
going to go on a witch hunt to catch unemployed women, to see
if they are not dipping two or three times in the unemployment
insurance pot, in which case they will get cut off. They will no
longer be eligible.
With respect to Quebec, there is another side to the story. I
believe that the real objective of the Liberal government is to get
involved in job training. In Quebec, there is a consensus. All
stakeholders, including the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
the unions, political parties, the Conseil du patronat, agree that
Quebec should manage its own job training. This is an expensive
bureaucracy for the federal government and Quebec, both in
terms of money and time.
I do not believe that the Liberal government will be going in
that direction. Quebec's unemployment rate has doubled since
1970. The Liberal government is pursuing the same policy as the
Conservatives who lost the elections because of it. They wanted
to make cuts in unemployment insurance, and reform social
programs, but the Liberal Party promised jobs, jobs, jobs. This
is where the Liberal Party is heading in the wrong direction. It
should be offering to stimulate the economy, to stimulate
business in order to create jobs.
7118
Obviously, if the unemployment rate has doubled since 1970,
it is because there are no jobs. What are we going to do with
the frequently unemployed? We are going to penalize them. We
are going to turn them into second-class unemployed workers,
and women will be particularly penalized by this suggestion.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that we want
to penalize the unemployed. I believe that the role of any
government is to find work for Canadians, to make education
accessible, to improve the situation of the neediest, like single
mothers, and to ensure a more prosperous future for their
children.
Once again, what we hear from the Bloc Quebecois is the
same old tune. They want the government to stop interfering
with provincial programs.
I will not say anything against the Quebec Government or its
Department of Education. I did it before and I will have further
opportunities to do so. The only question we should ask
ourselves is: ``What matters for people in a difficult situation?''
It is not whether their case is being considered by a provincial
civil servant or a federal civil servant. What matters to people is
to have access to programs, to have a chance, to know that
constructive measures to stimulate the economy are being taken.
What matters to people, and in particular the neediest-and I
believe that the Liberals always tried to help the neediest-is to
be able to re-enter the work force.
I must, unfortunately, repeat that when the hon. member says
that this is a problem of overlapping, of federal interference, she
is a victim of her party's propaganda.
(1640)
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised at the
comments of the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I think there was a
consensus in Quebec on education and occupational training
from people with high credibility. This issue has nothing to do
with political allegiance. I was naming all the stakeholders from
the political, educational and labour communities and we all
agree in Quebec that education and vocational training should
be under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Civil servants told me that no one could understand a thing
about the alignment of federal and provincial programs. We can
see that the hon. member did not often have to look for a job and
was never forced into the maze of programs delivered by Quebec
and Ottawa.
One of the programs offered by the federal government,
before the training program starts, is a needs analysis. It so
happened that there was a two-year delay before it could be
implemented and when we were about to start, the needs had
changed and there were no more participants. During all this
time, the people had not worked. So you can certainly not blame
this on ill will on the part of the Bloc Quebecois if we do not
understand.
We were elected with a majority in our ridings to defend
Quebec's interests and I think, in this case, it means to repatriate
our money.
I have not talked about transfers to provinces. The
government wants to cut transfers so that the onus will be on the
provinces to manage this cut-rate unemployment. The
provinces will again be the ones to pick up the tab. And we all
know that when provinces go broke, they turn to municipalities.
Therefore, I think that if provinces were to manage their own
programs, the constituents and the public would really know
who the culprit is. Now the federal and provincial governments
are passing the buck back and forth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The
hon. member for Mercier-Unemployment.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have looked forward to rising and speaking in this debate for
quite a while. I was one who spent a lot of time on his feet in the
last Parliament debating the very principles that are on the floor
today: what should be the central tenets of the country and the
underlying principles that have led us, albeit with our problems,
to be one of the greatest nations on earth.
I come from a region that for far too long has perhaps not
shared in the greatness of the country, particularly its wealth.
We have wealth in other areas with our culture, our history, our
music and our people; but when it comes down to the things that
put bread and butter on the table I speak from the perspective of
a regional representative who has tried his very best, as have
many before me, to impact on the policies of national
governments in recognition of the fact that we live in a country
that is regional in its nature.
The whole concept of social policy reform perhaps causes
shivers up the spine of many individuals out there, even some
provincial premiers who have to rely on a generous, well
thought, rational program of social spending by the federal
government, the government that has the tax power, to be able to
deliver services of a national standard to the individuals they
represent.
We have to go back a bit and talk about the development of
social policy. Nearly every major program we have today has
been the result of dialogue in this place and in public. Nearly
every piece of progressive social legislation that we currently
have up for debate in our social policy review has been dealing
with programs that have been brought about by Liberal
government initiatives.
7119
We have to be careful when we criticize the process if we
are not willing to understand the history of the party that
teaches how to reform social programs. When I look back on
the great history of the Liberal Party it is very clear that the
Liberal Party tried very much to ensure that the country was
not the same as the United States.
(1645 )
We recognized that the free market system had to grow and
flourish but we believed that there were broader principles
which had to monitor, had to temper the influence of the private
sector and market forces in Canada. We were not the same as the
Americans and we were not the same as some of the countries
that we sought our early immigration from which were smaller
and more compact.
We are one of the largest nations on earth and we have an
uneven distribution of population. We have ten provincial and
two territorial governments at this point. Through all of this as
our country grew and as the great resources that God gave us in
this great land were exploited, it was Liberal thinking, small l
and big L, that said there is a fundamental responsibility of
governments to ensure that the great wealth that is Canada is
shared as equally as possible by all Canadians no matter where
they live.
How do we do that? Do we just say if you are living in Alberta
and they find oil in the ground you are going to do well perhaps
for this generation or maybe the next, or 100 ago when you lived
in Atlantic Canada and cod was plentiful and there were all
kinds of money flowing into those households that did not have
to share it? No, we believed collectively that we had a
responsibility as government-our party believed that then and
believes it today-to try to ensure that the wealth of this country
is redistributed wherever possible to those individuals who are
less prosperous today.
We have done that through social programs. We came in with
unemployment insurance. We decided that we had to find some
vehicle to transfer funds on a regular basis with a standard
program and we came up with established program financing,
EPF. That is how the federal government through its taxation
powers takes moneys in and sends moneys back to the provinces
to try to ensure a certain level of quality in the delivery of
service in health care and post-secondary education.
The unemployment insurance system was initially put in
place to ensure that workers who found themselves temporarily
without employment were not going to have the bank come in
and foreclose on the farm. It was meant to be an income
supplement during that period of time until the individual could
either retrain or find another job in the labour market and pay his
or her bills.
We have had further progressions in social policy right up to
the Constitution Act in which one of the fundamental
characteristics of this country was set down as equalization. One
of the major factors that distinguishes this country from others
around the world is the fact that our Constitution says that the
government has a responsibility to ensure that the provinces
have the ability to deliver services of national standards,
national quality, no matter what the fiscal situation of that
province is.
Our social programs through old age security, through
veterans' pensions, all of those programs have been an attempt
by past governments to meet that fundamental commitment, that
characteristic of Canadian society of equalizing the opportunity
for all Canadians.
In a province like Nova Scotia some would say we rely to
heavily on that. Maybe we do. Some say that perhaps the
amounts of dollars transferred down have not met with the
successes that were waiting there for them. I am one of those
individuals who would agree.
I think it is high time we sit down and examine the vehicles.
These programs are merely vehicles to deliver certain
principles. It is also a time for us as Canadians to reaffirm the
principles.
I know there are some on the Liberal Party side, perhaps even
who sit in this Chamber, who believe we have to fight tooth and
nail to maintain the vehicle. I do not think we have to do that.
What we have to do in this period of fiscal restraint is redefine
what we try to accomplish as governments.
Is the principle of equalization going to be maintained as one
of the fundamental strands in the fabric of this country? I think
most of the people in this place would say yes. Are we still going
to try to take the wealth of this great country and ensure that
individuals like me, the son of a coal miner who saw more pay
days than pay cheques down in Cape Breton, can go to university
because I have not been tuitioned right out of the picture? Does
it make sure that somebody who lives in northern Ontario or
downtown Vancouver or in Bay d'Espoir Newfoundland, when
they have a problem with their health, does not have to worry
about the size of their bank account, that quality health care is
there?
(1650 )
We are facing major challenges. I think as this debate goes
forward Canadians will reaffirm the principles that this country
has been founded on, principles of fairness, of equal sharing of
the resource, of caring for one another and a free market system
altogether, all in one.
This reform that we talk about is essential. It is essential that
we grapple with the real economic problems that we have today.
It is also essential that these reforms are not dictated by any one
region of this country.
7120
Atlantic Canada is not western Canada. Alberta is not
Newfoundland. Quebec is not Ontario. This is a country that
is as distinct because of the differences that it has been able
to accommodate internally as it is distinct by its geography and
its people.
During this reform of social policy, during the debate that
takes place, we must ensure that those principles that have been
established, that have made this country great from sea to sea to
sea, are reinvented. We say that is the foundation and if there is a
better way for us to deliver those principles of equalization, of
allowing as a people, each and every individual in this country,
to develop to the fullest of their potential I will be on board for
that.
I am afraid of change. I am afraid when I see two systems of
UI being put on the table for debate that it means some of my
fishermen in Atlantic Canada or the Gaspe may find themselves
on the short end of that stick and I worry about that. I am worried
that talk of cutting back on transfers through EPS to universities
will mean that people who grew up or are growing up as I did
with not very much money coming in for food let alone to put
away for their children's university may not be able to get a
quality education.
I am equally convinced, and this balances my concern, that as
this debate goes forward one single thing will come out of it if
nothing else and it will be that we will come back as a people and
we will re-endorse and reaffirm those principles of equalization
of the government allowing the free market system to flourish
but at the same time using the resources of this great state, of
this great nation, to ensure as best we can as mere mortals that
those resources are put to work for the people of this country no
matter where they live.
The debate is important. My voice I hope will be heard. My
voice will probably be a voice of dissent on many of the things
that are put on the table but I am not going to sit back and be
critical and not participate in the process. That is one way the
people I represent will not be heard and I am quite prepared. My
voice can be loud at times. I may be small but I was blessed with
good vocal cords. My voice on behalf of the people not just in
Atlantic Canada but people right across this country is heard and
that the desires they have that their government will be able to
respond to their needs are materialized in a brand new social
policy reform package and the vehicles that we choose to deliver
are vehicles that will be efficient, that will deliver to the people
who need it the most, and more than anything else will ensure
that the next generation of Canadians, far too many of whom are
living in poverty, will be able to look forward to a bright future
in this great country.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been most fascinating coming to the House of Commons and
dealing directly with people who are eminently qualified to
speak for the Liberal Party as members of Parliament for the
Liberals.
One of the difficult things I have encountered is that I do not
seem to be able to get a straight answer to a very simple question
and it reflects around the area of universality. Does the member
actually believe in universality?
As I listened to the member's very eloquent speech it seemed
to me that he, like most Liberals, is trying to have it both ways.
The Liberals are saying we are going to have government
intervention but we are going to have free market. Some of the
things unfortunately are mutually exclusive.
I am not suggesting for a second that I do not believe in the
basic concept of equalization and trying to even things out but
we have developed this to such a science in Canada that we have
reached the point at which we no longer can afford it.
I have a question with respect to universality. I believe this is
the fourth time and the fourth member I have put this question
to. I know the member is going to give me a straight answer to
this question because he is such an upright looking gentleman. I
can tell he is going to give me a straight answer.
(1655)
Where are we going with this thing? Does the member
actually believe in the concept of universality in which every
single Canadian has equal access to all of the programs
available? Or does the member believe, as the Reform Party
believes, that we are going to have to target some of our social
programs, that we are going to have to be selective and make
sure that the people in Canada who are most in need will have
those services available to them? In other words, that is the
difference. Those two things are mutually
exclusive-universality or are we going to be targeting our
resources because that is not universality? Which is it?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I could send him over a
dictionary. That might be a quicker response.
To the member for Kootenay East, on university I think
everything is on the table, to be quite honest. When I see that
there are over 1.5 million Canadian children living in poverty
that tells me that the dollars we are spending are not hitting the
mark. When I see individuals who have to live below the poverty
line, who have worked hard to build this country because the
dollars have been spread too thin, then I do not think those are
the types of programs I want to see continued.
When I see single parents, primarily women who cannot get
out into the workforce because they have children at home, who
cannot get a hand up because the money available to the
programs we are maintaining keeps them down and ensures a
cycle of poverty, of non-productivity both economically and at
a complete destruction of self-worth, I am prepared to listen to
anybody in this country who would go back to the basic
principal of equalized opportunity.
7121
Quite frankly, I would not be here today if it were not for
those social programs. Maybe most members of the Reform
Party would, but I do not think so. I know the backgrounds of
some of those individuals. They have chosen public life. Many
of them were not brought up with a silver spoon and many of
them did get the benefit of a university education because of
transfers to their home provinces for education. I know that.
Does that mean that everything we have today has to stay the
same? I would say no.
He asked me if I believe in universality. I do for some
programs. There are some programs I do not think can be cut
without damaging the fabric of the country. On health care, do I
want a user pay system? No, I do not. I know the Reform Party
does not either. We want to maintain that as an essential piece of
the fabric of this country.
I am prepared to sit down on each and every program. I am not
prepared to do what some on the other benches, most notably the
Reform Party and the right wing would do, which is simply to do
across the board cuts.
When we look at these things we have to use the ingenuity I
know members of this Chamber have to develop vehicles that
would allow for the majority of assistance that is available be
targeted to those individuals who need it the most. We all know
that it diminishes on a daily basis. However, does that mean we
have to throw the baby out with the bath water? I think not. I
think the baby has to do with a little less water in the tub.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to ask a few questions or at least to make a few
comments on the hon. member for Dartmouth's speech.
I have worked with the hon. member on the Fisheries and
Oceans Committee. First of all, I must say that I find most
interesting his concern that the paper tabled by the Minister of
Human Resources Development might possibly create two
categories of unemployed, when he says that the chronically
unemployed apply for UI benefits two and three times over a
five-year period.
Yet, coming from maritime regions, we both know that our
constituents are directly involved in, and directly affected by,
this. There is even more cause for concern considering that we
had an inkling of the Minister of Human Resources
Development's reform earlier this year with the UI changes
made this spring, for example, when the qualifying period was
increased from 10 to 12 weeks.
(1700)
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this, to
know if there are lobster fishermen in his region who, since cod
fishing is forbidden under the moratorium, have nothing else to
fish. To qualify for unemployment insurance, they need 12
weeks of work. Every one knows that in maritime ridings,
lobster fishing is subject to a natural constraint, since the
season is only 10 weeks long. Now that is very interesting.
The last point I would like the hon. member for Dartmouth to
consider is equalization payments, when he says that the federal
government has taxing powers to regulate, to administer its
so-called national social programs.
The problem, as I see it, is that the minister already has a
figure in mind as regards the extent of the cuts. He is trying to
say which program or program component he would like to cut.
This sounds like a dangerous approach to me because welfare
recipient are left out in the cold. Making programs disappear, or
reducing the assistance provided under such a program, and I
will conclude on this, will not make welfare recipients
disappear.
This means that the provinces will have to pay out of their
own pockets. Equalization does not work if Quebec or Ontario,
for example, see the percentage of welfare recipients they have
to provide assistance to on their own increase all of a sudden.
Because if there is a freeze in federal spending levels,
equalization will not work. These were the comments I wanted
to make.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I certainly
enjoy working with the member for Gaspé on the fisheries
committee. We share many of the same concerns. Our mother
tongue may be different, but our regions are not that dissimilar
and our interests are pretty similar.
I want to pick up on one thing. The member indicated that the
federal government has the authority to provide equalization, to
try to equalize the opportunities for Canadians. I would go one
further. Since his party is very concerned about constitutions
and constitutional status, I would like to inform him that it is not
just the authority, it is a constitutional requirement. Whatever
cuts are made to social policy as a result of the ballooning
deficit, every cut must be looked at to see whether or not, in
accordance with the Constitution, it has increased or decreased
disparity in the country. That is one of the things that is a fall
back for us. The Constitution provides for that.
With respect to the other question he asked dealing with UI, it
is a major problem. One of the things we have to do is stop
handing out the dough. It is a bit like a narcotic. If you have a
pain in your arm and you do not treat the cause of the pain but
keep giving the drug for the pain pretty soon you forget about the
pain but you keep needing the drug.
We have to try to deal with diminishing dollars and address
the real problem. We have to restructure the fishery so that the
individuals left in the core fishery can make a decent living off it
and never again see the fishery as a way, through licensing, to
qualify for UIC. Unfortunately that is what has happened in the
past. People who have a licence should be able to make a good
7122
living at lobster, at groundfish, at whatever, but we have spread
it far too thin.
In conclusion, I agree. I have those concerns. I look forward to
reading the input from his town hall forums that he is going to be
holding on social policy reform and what his people are saying
on it. Perhaps we can sit down and see how close together both
our communities are on the need for this type of restructuring.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to address the
House on this most important matter of reforming our social
programs.
I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development and his parliamentary secretary for
having the courage to put forward this most-needed initiative.
I will restrict my comments to two areas. First, why do we
need social policy reform? Second, what are the principles
which should direct these changes and what are the objectives
we want to achieve?
On October 14 and 15 I held two sets of public consultations
in my riding of Timiskaming-French River, one in Kirkland
Lake and one in Haileybury, probably the first public forums on
the social reforms in the country. About 100 constituents
attended the forums and 26 individuals and organizations
presented briefs.
(1705 )
There was unanimous agreement on the need for social reform
and toward the objectives outlined in the minister's discussion
paper. There was also a broad consensus on the kind of reforms
needed to achieve these goals. The best way to demonstrate the
need for reform is to give three examples of situations which
came up at the hearings.
The first example is one of a young couple with two children,
both earning salaries just above minimum wage. After allowing
for child care expenses, travel, income taxes, an increase in
geared to income rent, we found that the net income for this
couple was $150 less a week than if they had been on social
assistance. This is wrong and totally unacceptable. In addition,
the young couple have lost their drug and dental assistance plan.
Geared to income housing rental is based on gross revenue
before factoring in income taxes and all the work related
expenses. In effect, a working couple earning a net income of
$1,000 a month will pay more in rent than a couple on social
assistance receiving $1,200 a month. I find this unfair.
We are telling those Canadians who have the pride and
self-motivation to go out and find work that if they do go out and
work, we will penalize them.
The second example is one of a man who is married and has
four children. He is fairly well-qualified but was unable to find
a permanent job. He had to go on social assistance to support his
family. He decided to put an ad in the paper to find part time
work and earned $800 gross in a one-month period as a
self-employed carpenter.
This gentleman reported his earnings to the welfare board.
Not only did they deduct all but $50 from his cheque, they did
not allow any expenses related to his job, such as advertising.
This is very important. They even informed this gentleman that
if he put another ad in the paper, he would be considered
self-employed and be taken off the payroll altogether. Is this the
kind of social policy the country needs at this time?
The third example is one of a young, single mother with two
children. This young woman is on social assistance but wants to
go to school. She wants to get back into the work force. Because
she lives in a rural area where child care is unavailable and she
has no means of transportation, she cannot go back to school and
re-train.
Our reforms should, and I hope will, address the special needs
of those Canadians living in rural areas so they too can benefit
from the increased opportunities which will hopefully result
from these reforms. It is clear that reforms are badly needed.
The response to the government's initiative on my constituents
was simple. It is about time.
A recent COM-PAS poll suggested that 91 per cent of
respondents want social assistance recipients to be given the
opportunity-I am not saying to be forced-to re-train or to do
community work. Seventy per cent agreed that social benefits
should be re-targeted to the most needy.
What are the principles that should guide us as we embark on
these most urgently needed reforms? First, we must ensure that
we maintain a social safety net, an income level sufficient for
those most vulnerable. We must preserve this compassionate,
caring, society that makes us the envy of the world. We must
tackle child poverty and encourage self-confidence and
personal initiative. We must also ensure these programs are
within our means by ending waste, duplication and abuse. We
must do this in order to guarantee the future affordability of
these programs.
However, the main thrust of these reforms is about jobs and
growth. The best social program, as our Prime Minister has said
many times, is a decent job that does not only ensure Canadians
the means to sustain themselves, but also restores in them
confidence and the dignity of work. Félix Leclerc, one of our
most prominent singers and authors, once said: ``The best way to
assassinate somebody is to give him nothing to do.''
7123
(1710)
[Translation]
According to another saying, idleness is the root of all evil.
By doing everything to put Canadians back to work or to train
them, we will not only ensure the future viability of our social
programs but also solve at the same time a host of social
problems such as family violence and alcoholism.
[English]
This is what these reforms are all about, giving Canadians the
tools such as child care, retraining and counselling, so that they
can get out of the dependency rut and back into productive
society.
This reform is about creating opportunity instead of
dependency. This reform is about asking all
governments-federal, provincial, municipal, employers, and
more important the recipients of social programs-to share
responsibility. We need programs that are going to be more
flexible, adapted to people instead of to the bureaucrats that
administer them.
I believe very strongly in the principles and objectives as set
out in the discussion paper. I intend to continue to consult with
my constituents so that together we will find a strategy to renew
and improve our social safety net. Together we will find the
courage to implement the changes needed to build a better
society where people will have self-confidence and the dignity
of a job. Together we will build a society that will continue to be
the envy of the world into the next century.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with
the hon. member's observation that reform is badly needed in
the country. Amen to that.
I agree also with his observation that the best social program
is a job. If he believes that or if his government believes that,
why then does it persist in its destructive anti-employment
policy of taxing the life out of the Canadian economy in order to
maintain its spendthrift habits? Is this not an unreasonable
approach?
Mr. Serré: I thank the hon. member for his support. We need
reform but we do not need the Reform Party.
But having said that, I have had occasion to talk to the hon.
member many times on a lot of issues and we share similar
views.
The government certainly believes that job creation should be
the number one priority. This is what reform is all about, not
only this social policy reform but the document tabled by the
finance minister and the upcoming document of the Minister of
Industry. All our red book and other programs are geared toward
creating jobs, creating opportunities.
We moved in the first budget to remove some of the
disincentives that impact on job creation. We reduced UI
premiums, and hopefully with constructive suggestions from
both opposition parties and from government members, we will
find better ways to put Canadians back to work.
It is not only a question of dollars. I know that members of the
Reform Party always think money. We Liberals think about
people. Putting people back to work is not only saving a dollar or
getting more revenue in income tax, it restores to Canadians the
dignity of being able to be self-sufficient. To do that, we have to
give them the tools.
Right now, as I mentioned in my speech, people have many
disincentives to going back to work. They are discouraged from
going back to work. Hopefully, with these reforms, we will be
able to give them the tools they need to get back to work.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to the speech by the member of the
government party.
As you may recall, in the last nine years of the Conservative
government, on several occasions when reforms were proposed
by the former government, the Liberals-then the Official
Opposition-did a very good job. They gained the trust of the
Canadian people, who brought them to power. Unfortunately, I
think that the government misled the population. May I remind
you of former Tory minister Valcourt's UI reform, which created
a scandal here in this House.
The Conservatives caused a significant rise in the deficit
which, of course, the current government promised to reduce.
Everyone, I think, agrees that the deficit should be cut.
However, reducing the deficit at the expense of the poor is
unacceptable. The people do not want the deficit to be reduced at
the expense of the poor.
Last week, the Minister of Finance told us that, although the
Bloc Quebecois agrees that the deficit should be cut, there is no
other way to bring in the new money that would reduce it. I sit on
the Standing Committee on Finance and we submitted to the
committee chairman and to the Minister of Finance, on several
occasions, adequate solutions that would allow the government
to find additional funds.
We also asked the government to cut into the fat of public
expenditures, in the right place, namely the other house,
commonly known as the Senate. It still costs the government
$628 million a year, including all staff.
As you may recall, a minister in this government made a
return trip in the same day at a cost of $173,000.
As you may recall, the Prime Minister decided-
7124
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Sorry, but speeches are
limited to 10 minutes and subject to a five-minute question and
comment period. It is very short.
Since I want to allow as many members as possible to
participate in today's debate, I will let the hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River give a short reply, please.
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, this will be very short. I thank the
hon. member for his statement.
I can summarize their philosophy very briefly. I think that
they want to keep Canadian and Quebec families in perpetual
poverty because that is what you do when you give them a
cheque every month and tell them to stay home and do nothing.
For a year, I have heard members of the Bloc Quebecois tell us to
stop duplication, that is how we will save money. That is what
we are trying to do with these reforms.
For a year, I have heard Bloc members tell us to tax the rich.
That is what we want to do with the education reform. We want
to stop subsidizing the sons of lawyers and give to those who
really need it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to speak about a philosophy of governing today. The
philosophy is called incrementalism. I want to relate this
philosophy to the social policy review.
To illustrate, I want to tell members a story. I know how they
enjoy a good relevant story. There was a woman who wanted to
buy a chicken so she went into a country store where the store
owner had a big sign that offered lots of chickens for sale.
The store owner did not tell the lady that he really only had
one scrawny chicken left at the back of the store. He offered to
catch one of his many chickens and went back into the chicken
coop. When he got there he banged a few walls, made some
clucking noises and came back with his only chicken.
He said: ``That will be $5. Thank you very much''. The lady
answered: ``That chicken looks a little thin. Do you think I could
have a different one?'' The merchant did not know quite what to
do but he was a fellow with a fair bit of gall and a lot of nerve so
he kept that stiff upper lip and went back into the coop.
He raised some dust and he hit a few more walls. He made
some more clucking noises. He fluffed up the chicken's feathers,
turned it around on the plate, took it back out to the lady and
said: ``That will be $10, please''. The lady said: ``I don't know.
That one looks a little thin, too. I think I better take them both''.
This is a great analogy to this social policy review that we are
going through.
(1720 )
The Liberals during the last election made a great many
promises. They said: ``We have many chickens in our coops. In
fact, all it will cost you is the election. Trust us. Vote us in and
we will bring back your chicken''. In fact, on October 10 last
year the Globe and Mail quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
``Let me win the election and after that you come and ask me
questions about how I will run the government''.
The poor taxpayer bought into the government claims. The
taxpayer then said: ``Okay, now we have elected you. Just go
back into your coop and bring out a nice chicken for us. Let us
see what you have''. The minister went away and consulted with
special interest groups, with his political friends and I suppose
some other people and came back with a chicken for the
taxpayer. This chicken has a name. Its name is ``Agenda: Jobs
and Growth''. It is a book full of suggestions but it does not have
any plans. It especially has no costing to its vague proposals.
Canadians took one look at this poor excuse for a chicken and
said: ``This is one mighty scrawny chicken. There is no meat on
it. How are Canadians possibly going to get a meal from this
chicken''?
Allow me to quote what some Canadians have actually said.
The Vanier Institute on the Family said: ``It does not show an
awful lot of commitment by the government at this time to any
one of the options put forth''. The Caledon Institute of Social
Policy said: ``It is on the whole thin on specifics''.
The Toronto Star said: ``It is surprisingly timid, vague and
short of essential information. It does not contain a single
proposal that could be described as original or daring''. The
paper was panned by the premiers of B.C. and Saskatchewan and
endorsed by only one lonely premier. The premier of Ontario
called it an insult.
The chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce said: ``It is a bit of a pig in a poke''. Apparently, he
likes the pork analogy better than he likes my chicken story.
Canadians have had a good look at this chicken now. As the
poll on the weekend showed, they like the general idea of
cutbacks, but they want to see some more specifics.
However the store owner, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, has the same kind of gall as that other store
owner. He is going to say: ``Okay, another chicken you want,
another chicken you will get''. He will go back into his chicken
coop, make some more political noise, fluff up the feathers of
his poor old chicken and bring it out for the taxpayer to see. Do
you know what? It will be the same old chicken only it will cost
more through higher taxes.
7125
The Liberals delayed this social policy review for nine
months before bringing it out. They finally brought it forward
and it says virtually nothing. Why are we surprised? It is not
the Liberal way to say anything. It is the Liberal way to delay,
to study, to talk and to talk and after much fanfare raise the
taxes and take the tiniest baby steps toward any kind of
resolution of all the problems we are currently experiencing.
I want members to know something. Initially, some taxpayers
will accept the government's tiny incremental solutions because
at least there is the appearance of change. It is only when
taxpayers realize that they need both chickens for their pot,
specific plans for social policy change and action on the debt
and deficit, that the government will be exposed for what it
really is.
What will the minister say when the bluff is called? He will be
speechless. It is hard to imagine but I think he will be
speechless. He will stand there with empty hands and empty
pockets and say: ``I'm sorry. All along we only had that one
scrawny chicken. The real chicken is a skinny one. We have
nothing to deal with the debt and deficit that is in fact destroying
our social programs''.
The Liberal government has ruled this country for
generations. It has always proceeded in these careful half-step
fashions. Mackenzie King was a classic Liberal. His words
``conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription'' are
a perfect example of a Liberal statement. Liberals balance
artfully on the fence, careful not too move too fast, careful not to
offend. But while the Liberals sit and think and be careful,
problems are building up like floodwaters behind the dam.
What are these problems? Examples are everywhere. Serious
changes are required in the UI system, changes that Reformers
have advocated for some years now. Restoring UI to a
self-sustaining insurance type program, funded, controlled and
administered by the workers and employers who use it.
For example, there is the new health care review. Change was
promised a year ago, promised again in the spring, promised
again this fall by a Prime Minister who last week found out that
the provinces, health care's largest player, the player that
Reformers say should have even more freedom to administer
health care programs, will not even participate in this latest $12
million study. Imagine, $12 million and 22 more people to study
and review the system for another year. Health care will be close
to death by that time.
(1725)
This goes across the board. The Minister of Public Service
Renewal gave a speech a year ago telling the public service that
change is coming, but do not worry we are still reviewing and
studying. The GST changes are still under review. Tax reform is
needed but under review. The $58 million royal commission on
aboriginal peoples is delayed for another six months.
If there is no action in our year old social programs a year
from now they will be in a far worse situation even if the
economy continues to do well. Our debt will have grown in a
year by another $40 billion. The likelihood that all will go as
planned is small. Life is never ideal. We are in a position of
tremendous risk.
All it would take is a slight downturn in the economy, a small
jump in the interest rates, to decimate our social programs
instead of managing the change now in an orderly fashion.
The government often accuses Reform of a lack of
compassion, for wanting to act now on social program reform. Is
it really a show of compassion to add another $100 billion of
debt on to the country? Is it truly compassionate to force
working Canadians to pay more and more of their pay cheques in
taxes funnelled to foreigners, money for which they will never
receive any kind of a spinoff however indirect, to force more and
more jobs out of the economy as Canada becomes less and less
competitive because of its debt, to gradually whittle away our
civil service and our social programs because more and more
must go to pay the interest?
The bank does not care if you have good food on your table as
long as you are able to pay your mortgage. In the same way the
world investment community could not care less if Canada has
any social programs or government jobs or anything else,
period, as long as we pay the interest on our debt.
Liberal incrementalism hurts Canadians and that is why
Reform rejects their course of action. It is an act of compassion
to swallow the tough medicine right now, to make the changes
now from further reliance on the federal government and to
greater rewards for personal initiatives, for a greater reliance on
family ties and on local institutions in our communities, and
then finally the personal freedom that can only come from a
lower level of taxation.
That is why Reform says we need to balance the budget during
the term of this Parliament. That is what we call tough love for
our country.
What used to be a clear governing philosophy of
incrementalism has even changed of late. Andrew Coyne of the
Globe and Mail says of this government's proposals: ``Behind
the generalities lurks a government that is scared to death. It is
not the fear that inspires but the fear that transfixes the deadly
paralysis of the rabbit in the cobra's gaze''.
I believe the Liberals are no longer even incrementalists.
They are simply afraid to move, paralysed by problems on the
one hand and the titillations of power on the other.
I suggest that it is time to have courage and seize the
opportunity. I would like to quote a bit of Shakespeare just to
lighten the atmosphere. It goes like this and it is familiar. I am
sure Mr. Speaker knows it by heart. It states:
7126
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken in the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves
Or lose our ventures.
The great floodtide of opportunity is flowing. The time to ride
its crest is now. Change will never be easier than today but three
more years of discussion papers and reviews may totally ruin
our social system.
Liberals will forever regret passing up the golden opportunity
to address these problems in last year's federal budget. They
will regret passing up today's golden opportunity of economic
growth and their party may well break up if the economy
founders on the debt. Then a gale force wind will sweep political
change over this land and the Reform Party, fully matured and
mindful of the long term interests of the country, will be there to
pick up the pieces and preserve the essentials of our social safety
net.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In that same spirit of
humour, I do not know if I liked the story about the chickens
better or Shakespeare's quote.
(1730 )
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the member for Fraser Valley East with great interest.
When he was talking about pork and chickens I could not help
but think of ham and eggs. He is quite a ham and a lot of the ideas
the Reform Party has is like laying big eggs.
I would like to pick up on two points the member raised. First,
the Reform Party makes much ado about referenda, listening to
the people and responding to what people are telling it. In fact
what we are doing in this consultation process of the
government is listening to the people.
When the member gets a chance to respond I wonder if he will
attempt to square the Reform Party's position vis-à-vis
referenda and the need to listen to people with what we are doing
as a government to consult with the public to put out in front of
Canadians serious options, not just fuzzy ideas.
An example is the second part of my question. In my riding I
have the wonderful city of Elliot Lake which has recently gone
through a major transformation. Part of that transformation,
because of changes in the local economy, has included
thousands of seniors moving to the community. We have an
opportunity through the options put forward by the minister to
engage Canadians who are now maybe on unemployment
insurance or welfare to contribute back to the community and
help us keep our seniors safe in their homes.
The minister's proposals have given us an opportunity to be
creative, have given direction, and I can hardly imagine how the
member could respond by suggesting that these options are
nothing less than very concrete proposals for the future.
I would ask him to deal with those two points if he would.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues, one
which is close to every Reformer's heart, the issue of
referendums. Referendums are one way of determining in a very
final way what the people in the country want to do as far as
taxes, expenses, priorities, things they want to get a handle on
such as capital punishment issues, things that are burning in the
nation's craw, so to speak.
I have no problem whatsoever with squaring the idea of
listening to the people. A couple of days ago, and this is not a
referendum, polls indicated 90 per cent of people want action on
social policy reform. When do they want it? We could start the
chant: when do they want it?-now. When are they asking for
it?-now. It has been a year and nothing has happened.
If you were to go to the people and ask if they were prepared
for a change, if you wanted to go, if people wanted to initiate a
referendum, they would approve massive changes now.
What they will not approve is the other side of the equation
where the Minister of Finance continues to fudge on whether to
tax RRSPs. Take that to a referendum. People would say
absolutely not, reduce government spending, that is how we are
going to handle this deficit problem.
I have no trouble figuring it out or relying on the people in the
country through the use of a referendum. Referendums, I think,
will back up what the Reform Party has been saying all along
which is that people want control of the debt and deficit and they
want it now. They expect the government to control them
through cutting expenses, not through additional tax increases.
Not only would they often approve such things in a
referendum but it would give that impetus to the government to
say not only do they want it to in a poll, they ordered it to do it
and what could be more unifying to the country than that force
from coast to coast saying we should get on with the necessary
changes now. Referendums are not a problem. We could
certainly do that easily.
As far as having creative ideas, all ideas are welcome when a
community goes through massive changes. All ideas have to be
brought forward on the table. In the paper on jobs and growth
pensions are not even mentioned. That is what the citizens of
Elliot Lake would like to have more discussion on than what this
paper offers.
7127
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate today
and surely the chickens are coming home to roost.
(1735 )
If the parliamentary channel were to be seen in the other
place, and I do not mean heaven-and it probably is for hours
and hours of the day-you could bet one thing. All those
Liberals, and the place would be full of them, would be rolling
over in their graves right now. What we are talking about is how
we are going unscramble an omelette. How are we going to make
right what the Liberals did 35 years ago in order to buy their
power and success with our money? That is what is all boils
down to.
We, ladies and gentlemen in television land, are the ones who
brought this upon ourselves. The Liberals and the
Conservatives, in order to get re-elected or elected, determined
the best way to do it was to buy us with our own money. The
chicken has come home to roost. Our responsibility, this
Parliament, I and my colleagues, are charged with the great
responsibility to somehow do this to keep our country whole and
to ensure that future generations of Canadians grow up in a spirit
and attitude of confidence, self-worth and self-respect.
How are we going to do it? My hon. colleague from Elliot
Lake talked about ham and eggs which reminded me of story of a
pig and a chicken walking down the road. They are walking
down the road and the pig said to the chicken: ``Chicken, I am
getting a little hungry''. The chicken said: ``So am I. Do you
think we should stop for breakfast?''. The pig asked: ``What do
you think we should have?''. The chicken said: ``Why don't we
have ham and eggs?''. The pig thought for a minute and said:
``Chicken, when you say ham and eggs, the eggs from you are a
donation, from me the ham is a commitment''. That is what
Canadians need and are looking for today. They are looking for
commitment.
There is absolutely nothing as disheartening as going into a
period of uncertainty and looking at the captain of the ship and
the captain is looking at somebody else to lead. Our country is
on stormy waters even as we speak. We need a government, we
must have a government, that will take the initiative and do what
it is paid to do, lead. The time for studying, navel gazing
discussion is long past. We are in serious trouble today and
dreaming about it and wishing are not going to change a thing.
There may be some of us here in this House who do not agree
with the American philosopher Ayn Rand, but I think all of us
would agree with at least this one truism, that you must deal with
things as they are, not as you would wish them to be. If we
reflect in our daily lives, we know that no matter how difficult
the situation we may face from day to day, the minute that we
start dealing with the problem it starts getting better.
We know what the problems are in our economy. We know
what got us here. Surely we know that the first step is the most
difficult to get us out of this mess and that is the chronic
overspending of all levels of government.
I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one aspect
of this social policy review, unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance started 35 or so years ago with the
noblest of intentions. The idea was that unemployment
insurance would help those who lost their jobs tide them over
until they were to get a new job. It is a noble idea. Who would
disagree with that? It was to be paid for by the people who would
use it-insurance. It would be paid for by the companies that
hired employees, and employers.
When unemployment insurance started in Canada it
consumed 0.9 per cent of our gross domestic product.
(1740 )
That is, of the value of all the goods and services that were
produced in our country, unemployment insurance was 0.9 per
cent. In 1992-93 unemployment insurance was 3 per cent of our
gross domestic product. It had increased from $60 million a year
to around $20 billion. No one got up one morning and said we
should turn unemployment insurance into something that is not
going to work, or will not be what we wanted it to be in the first
place.
It gradually, incrementally, took on other responsibilities. It
became a method whereby we were able to redistribute income
throughout the nation. As it stands today all across the country
dependent upon the unemployment rate, it is possible to get
unemployment insurance. For instance, in a place with 16 per
cent unemployment I think one needs to work 10 weeks a year to
get approximately 39 weeks of benefits. If the unemployment in
Canada averages 10 per cent, people need to work for, I believe,
15 weeks to get 30 weeks of benefits. It has absolutely no
relation to insurance.
Now we have a suggestion in this book-whatever its
colour-to change the name, to call it employment insurance.
Think about it for a minute. We do not like what unemployment
insurance has become, so let us change the name. Let us call it
employment insurance. Why do we not call it unfire insurance
then? Or let us call it uncollision insurance. Let us do whatever
we have to do, but for goodness sake let us not deal with the
problem as it is.
Let us obfuscate the problem. Let us somehow bury the
problem so we do not have to deal with it as it is. The Forge
commission years ago was charged with exactly this
responsibility, to make unemployment insurance
unemployment insurance. What did we as parliamentarians do?
We decided the Canadian people were not ready for these radical
reforms such as pay as you go, and it was put back on the
shelves.
7128
We do not have to go into a great navel gazing exercise in
order to figure out what is wrong with unemployment
insurance. All we have to do is make it insurance. There are
two aspects to this. There is the aspect of the employer and the
employee. Our system has become so generous and so easy to
get into that employers, when faced with the decision of letting
someone go, find it much easier to look someone in the eye and
say ``we are laying you off, we do not have enough work'', than
it is to say ``you are out of here because a) you do not show
up on time, b) you have not made an effort when you are here,
c) you do not groom yourself properly'' or whatever.
It is much easier to say ``we are going to lay you off''. What
does that do? That is a tax on everybody else who is working.
Does that do anything for the person being fired? It does
absolutely nothing.
When someone in our unemployment insurance maze happens
for whatever reason to get laid off or perhaps fired, what
happens? When people are laid off through no fault of their own,
the waiting period is fairly short and they are able to claim
benefits right away, as it should be. When people quit they are
supposed to be in a situation in which they cannot claim benefits
for an extended period of time. They can still claim benefits but
it takes a while.
In reality what happens? An employer fires someone and so
they go to their local unemployment insurance office and say
they were fired. They are asked why they were fired. The person
replies: ``I do not know. I should not have been fired. I am the
greatest employee ever ''.
They therefore go to the referee. The person who fired them
has to go through a long and involved process of saying why they
fired them. Then they have to go to a committee of three people
to justify it. Otherwise the person has recourse to say that he or
she was laid off.
(1745)
All this does not do anything to strengthen the insurance
aspect of what we are talking about. It would be relatively
simple in many of the great problems we have if we boiled it
down to some very straightforward essentials.
A basic mandate in everything we do is that it must be fair and
have equity. Fairness and equity must be the underlying values
in everything we do in social policy review including
unemployment insurance. We must inculcate with
everyone-employer, employee, parent and child-a sense of
personal responsibility for our successes and our failures in life.
If we were to do so, we would go a long way in establishing a
sense of self-sufficiency, self-confidence and self-worth in
ourselves as individuals. It is up to everyone as individuals to
make their way in life; it is not up to the government to do it for
anyone.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great respect to the comments of the
hon. member.
After listening to the first story about the chicken and then the
story about the chicken and the pork that were side by each going
down the road and after hearing comments from previous
speakers across the way, I remembered, coming from Atlantic
Canada, that in many cases we were very fortunate to have the
slim or the thin chicken in our pot of stew. Sometimes those
comments scare me. I wonder whether we would have anything
to put in the pot if we were to listen to some of the comments of
the Reform Party.
I want to direct a question to the hon. colleague across the
way. Has he read the green book, the paper of the Minister of
Human Resources Development that was tabled a week or so ago
now? Does he realizes that the minister invited consultation?
Does he intend to go to his constituents and say this is an
opportunity for them to participate, to have input and to have
their input respected as the input of other members of the
Reform Party and of other parties in the House will be respected
by the minister, the department and the government?
The opportunity for consultation, the opportunity that
Canadians were crying out for, has been lacking for many years.
They want to be part of a participatory government. Then we
have it and, if we listen to the Reform Party, it is saying: ``Make
up your mind tomorrow, dictate to Canadians, and forget about
consultation''.
I am somewhat confused when I hear such comments because
I believe that what Canadians want is participatory government.
That is what Canadians want in my constituency, in Atlantic
Canada, and I suspect in other parts of Canada. The Minister of
Human Resources Development has given them the opportunity
to be part of it. He has given you the opportunity to be part of it,
Mr. Speaker, and every member of the House.
Let us get to constructive input that will help the department
and the minister bring about a social program that is not only
good for all Canadians but supportable to all Canadians.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It gives me the opportunity to tell residents of
Edmonton in general and Edmonton Southwest specifically that
the meeting at which we will be discussing this subject will take
place on November 7 at 7.30 p.m. at the Royal West Edmonton
Inn as part of our ongoing discussions and deliberations with
constituents.
The hon. member mentioned dependence and consultation.
Consultations must be more than a feel good, giant warm fuzzy
smurf ball that we are throwing out and let us all hug it and think
we are doing something.
7129
(1750)
There has to be a specific purpose to what we are doing.
Before we can consult on the benefits of one program versus
another, let us put some costs up front, let us attach some costs to
it. Who in business would decide to go down plan a or plan b
without first determining where plan a is starting and finishing?
That is what is missing in the whole consultation review.
I have lived in the maritimes and have some considerable
sympathy for what people have talked about in an area of the
country considered to be chronically depressed. I do not think
that is true. I do not think the maritimes are chronically
depressed. As a matter of fact it is interesting to note that the
Bank of Nova Scotia did not start in Toronto; it started in the
maritimes. The wealth and power that existed in the maritimes
for many years have gradually progressed eastward to Toronto
and are concentrated in southern Ontario.
If I were a person living in the maritimes I would be on my
feet screaming for a triple E Senate to give my region at least
some power and say in the national decision making of the
country. That fairness in the triple E Senate will go a lot further
to putting the maritimes in a stronger financial position than all
the equalization payments forever which have done nothing.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on revising
our social programs.
There have been questions in the House about the consultation
process and some assertions that it is not genuine. There have
also been statements that the discussion paper is out of touch
with Canadians. Some have even said Canadians do not want to
overhaul our social support system, while others have argued
that Canadians want major reductions in our social programs.
I will deal with both those arguments, not by using conjecture
or my own opinion but by using the results of a public forum on
the future of social programs held in Edmonton East in June. The
results of the forum were submitted to the government before
the discussion paper was finalized. I am happy to report that the
document tabled this month reflects much of what my
constituents said. It is in touch with Canadians.
By way of background, in my first speech here I indicated
Edmonton East is a microcosm of Canada in many ways. We
have a very diverse population with a mixture of occupations,
income levels, social and cultural backgrounds. All this
diversity is similar to the diversity of Canada and was
represented at the forum. The group had in common a desire to
do what was best for local communities, what would best meet
the needs of all people there. That is also the basic value that
Canadians hold.
It is significant there was general agreement that our social
programs needed to be revamped to accommodate current
realities. I heard two general themes that night. One was an
appreciation for Canada's history of social programs as a good
way to demonstrate caring and to build community. No one said
to do away with them. Second were suggestions for
modifications and improvements. No one defended the status
quo as good enough.
There were differences of opinion, lots of them, as there are
across the country. Even more, there was an appreciation that
the government is ready to tackle the problem, not to destroy our
heritage but to improve on it. The residents of Edmonton East
also put forward some general directions for improving what we
have and a number of specific suggestions. I am happy to report
to the House that the discussion paper includes many of the
suggestions. Let me highlight a few.
It was no surprise that increasing employment opportunities
was a high priority in every discussion group. ``Training is not
much good without jobs'', said one participant and others
agreed. More worthy of note was the recognition that there is a
positive role for government to play in job creation in
partnership with the private sector and local communities. No
one can solve the problem alone.
Of particular value for the coming months of debate in the
House was the willingness of my constituents to recognize and
to deal with the bigger question of how we define and distribute
work in Canada. They want to see a better sharing of
employment opportunities. They want to see that people who
contribute to building our communities have adequate resources
for their basic needs whether they contribute through traditional
jobs or by doing the work that needs to be done, such as caring
for children or community work.
(1755)
They recognize our economy may have a shortage of paid jobs
but there is a lot of work to be done in the country. They said
volunteer work was productive work and should be recognized
by federal programs. They also recognize that employers
sometimes exploit employees because the lack of jobs makes
them vulnerable. ``There is no accountability for employers in
the present circumstances'', said one participant.
Going one step further, we as a society need to come to grips
with new ways to share the dignity of work and its just rewards.
``Overtime should not be allowed when so many people go
unemployed'', said one person. Others questioned the belief that
being home with children is no longer considered acceptable
work. We look forward to the proposals that will come from the
task force currently working on the question of distribution of
work in our society.
Another strong theme was the need to improve training
programs and educational opportunities. Residents show an
incredible wisdom. They care about the quality of the programs
and getting good value for their tax dollar, not about who
delivers them.
7130
Portable skills, on the job training and life skills were all
suggestions that found their place in the discussion paper. One
specific suggestion was apprenticeships for women at any age,
recognizing that they may be re-entering the workforce after
raising children. More opportunities for less academically
oriented youth was another emphasis. We do not need just more
access to university but more diverse kinds of education to
develop the many different skills of our young people and help
them find their niche in a global economy.
In addition to improving the quality of individual programs,
residents want better linkages between jobs, programs and
services. Income support programs need to be linked with
training programs and training programs with real job potential.
``Many of the good programs are too small'', said one group.
Several groups suggested replacing fragmented programs with a
mix of guaranteed annual income and guaranteed employment.
The participants in the Edmonton East forum understood that
cheap is not the same as efficient. They recognize that adequate
support is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. We need to
invest in people if we want them to invest in building our
country. People must be able to meet their basic needs in order to
be productive, learn new skills or care for children.
Of particular importance in our debate is the emphasis on the
needs of children and the importance of giving children a good
start in life. To me an important test of the success of our
revision of social programs will be whether or not children
living in poverty in my riding are better off. Maybe Premier
Kline can close his eyes to what is happening on the streets of
my city. I cannot. I see poor children who are too hungry to learn
well. Last week I met school children who are without warm
enough clothing to go out and plant tulips in the Canada
Remembers Program.
Everything is not all right in Alberta and that is not the vision
of Canada we want for our children. Some may not see the
connection between substandard housing, unemployment,
frustrated young people and public safety. The residents of my
riding know the connection because they live with it every day.
They know what it takes to build strong communities and that is
what they want governments to invest in.
That leads me to the last but perhaps the strongest theme I
heard: the importance of community support, non-financial
support. An income cheque does not create security. Young
people and seniors need a sense of belonging and involvement in
their community rather than isolation and alienation. Young
families and children need more than money. They need
community support for the important task of raising the next
generation.
Edmonton is known for its strong neighbourhood associations
and its many community run agencies that respond to local
needs and help to build local community networks. This network
is under severe distress, thanks to drastic provincial cuts
without consulting the people affected by them. Ironically it is
especially in times of uncertainty and rapid change like we are
living through today that every community needs some social
support services and networks.
The participants in the Edmonton East forum want the federal
government to take an active role in co-operation with cities and
local communities that know what needs to be done. If we do not
want people to fall through the cracks and become dependent on
federal government handouts, we must ensure that local
communities, not just provinces, have a voice in deciding what
kind of social support network is effective.
(1800)
Focus on local action, residents told me, not national
committees or endless federal-provincial consultations. It is
community networks for example which provide young people
with a sense of belonging that leads away from crime to safer
streets.
Perhaps our fixation on federal-provincial relations is too
narrow. Perhaps communities, especially our large urban ones,
should have a more direct voice when it comes to the social
development of our country. The people in my riding are
concerned that we are losing that sense of community that built
this country and they want to rebuild it. This is the most
important goal for our revitalization of Canada's social
programs.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the member was in the House when I last asked this
question about universality so she will know where I am coming
from.
It must be said again and again that the Reform Party stands
for ensuring that our country has the ability to be able to take
care of those in our society who are most in need, the kind of
people the member was just talking about.
However, with the greatest of respect to the other Liberal
members who have responded to this question, I have yet to get
what I consider to be a straight answer to the question.
Perhaps we could rephrase the question with respect to
universality and say this. If we define universality as being
programs that are not only available to all members of Canadian
society, but that in fact just automatically come out to members
of Canadian society, and if we recognize the problems, the
difficulties that we have developed in Canada as a result of this
process, and the fact that we are going to have to target to make
sure that people who have the most need, whether it is old age
security, health care, education, or whatever the process is,
maybe we could define it and come down to something more
precise.
7131
Specifically, which programs would the member want to
ensure remain under this universality blanket in its broadest
sense? That way, rather than just a simple yes or no we can have
a sense on where the member would see this going on the basis
of the input that she has had from her constituents.
Ms. Bethel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think
universality is perhaps one of the most undefined and
misunderstood words that we have. I guess it is for that reason I
will choose not to use it.
What I believe in and what is incredibly important to embed in
all the programs that we offer, be they social programs or
economic programs, is equity. That to me means that there is
equitable access, that there is fairness and equity and everyone
has equal, equitable opportunities.
The hon. member has asked what kind of social programs
should be excluded. I really believe this consultation process
that we are undergoing now is incredibly valuable. For one thing
I think it has all Canadians focused on exactly what we need to
offer in the way of social policy. What has come through very
clearly is that we need to target those in need.
The other incredibly valuable thing that we have done is we
have discussed this with those who receive the programs and the
benefits, not just the provinces and not just those who deliver
those programs but the people who actually receive them. What
we find from that is that is where the wisdom and the experience
with those programs comes from. That is where we see some of
the very best suggestions of change on how to make those
programs better, more efficient, more cost efficient and more
effective.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): I
have a really short question for the hon. member.
You mentioned that your community wants more community
involvement in the process. Can you see programs within the
system where the community can take over part of what the
federal government is now involved in?
(1805 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I give the floor to
the hon. member for Edmonton East I would just remind my
colleagues to direct your interventions through the Chair and not
directly to one another.
Ms. Bethel: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen in the past
few years is a real desire by communities to be self-sufficient,
in essence to take care of their own needs. If those needs relate to
children, whether they be recreation or nutritional programs or
whatever, I certainly see there being real value in community
groups and organizations taking over those functions.
It is important to know that those organizations will need
some kind of support to get them going. It is happening now.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the
government can modernize our social security system and,
based on the most recent polls, Canadians agree with that. But,
first and foremost, we must all think about the kind of society in
which we want to live. Together we must all search out the
solutions which are appropriate for us. This is a matter of mutual
responsibility.
We must, in particular, consider the way we spend and not just
how much we spend. This is what the social policy reform is all
about. We all agree that the problem has to do with the fact that
the nature of work changed drastically over the last 30 or 40
years and that our manpower training programs are no longer
adequate, given the new technologies and markets.
We all agree, including the opposition, that our rural and
urban areas had a better trained labour force which attracted
more investments and generated new jobs. This is why we
proposed a two-tier UI reform: one to help people who normally
work but sometimes need to rely on unemployment insurance;
the other, with more emphasis on training, for those who have
difficulty getting back or staying in the workforce. As you know,
this is why a sub-committee was set up.
The second element of the proposed plan concerns
post-secondary education. In Canada, education falls under
provincial or territorial jurisdiction. However, since the early
days of Confederation, the federal government has supported
post-secondary education because of the fundamental link
between education and employment.
That support has partly contributed to the establishment of
our universities and colleges. Accessibility is the new great
challenge which our post-secondary system must face. Indeed,
our institutions must train and prepare many more people than in
the past, and the training provided must be better targeted to the
new jobs being created.
In fact, in the last three years, the number of jobs offered to
university graduates has increased by 17 per cent, while jobs
offered to workers with no post-secondary education has
decreased by 19 per cent.
The idea that learning is only for kids and young adults is now
obsolete. Canadians must be able to enjoy better education and
training opportunities throughout their working lives. We are
now talking about life-long training. We must modernize the
system to avoid restricting access to education and training
either for young Canadians who are just starting a career or for
workers who want to keep up with the changing economy.
7132
In a competitive global market, investing in learning is a wise
decision from an economic point of view, but it must also be
a shared responsibility. The goal is to maintain and extend
access to post-secondary education and training.
Too many people spend years on welfare, when they could
find work if they had efficient support to look for a job or further
their education. The fact is that, since 1981, the number of
welfare recipients in Canada has doubled to reach a little over
three million.
Our social security system should protect the haves-not, that
is the people who cannot work, the low-income families, the
disabled or chronically ill and especially children living in
poverty.
(1810)
One thing is clear: even if the Canadian government had a
surplus instead of a deficit, we still would have to modernize our
social programs. We need a social security system that is viable
in the long run. We need a system that gives people the means to
break free from the bonds of welfare or to seek separation from
welfare, as the Opposition would put it. There is too much
unemployment, too many children living in poverty. The time
has come to act and to solve these problems.
This being said, we encourage Canadians to take advantage of
the social security reform process to make their points of view
known. In the weeks to come, a committee will hold hearings in
all parts of the country. At the same time, hon. members will
hold, as I did, public meetings in their ridings to consult their
constituents.
Later, the Canadian government will discuss the review with
the provinces, and I certainly hope, like a majority of
Quebecers, that the Quebec government will take part in this
Canada-wide consultation.
The facts are clear. We must concentrate our efforts on the
most vulnerable. This is only just and fair.
No one, of course, expects the working paper to solve
everything. It addresses a structural problem. It shows us the
way to a society that is better adapted to the social realities of
the year 2000. However, the Canadian government is also
undertaking initiatives to resolve difficulties in all other areas,
including a detailed examination of each federal program and
the modernization of government operations. It is also taking
concrete measures to help businesses take advantage of new
technologies and enter foreign markets. That is why we have
asked Jacques Parizeau to be part of the team that will leave for
China in a few days.
It takes time and a lot of goodwill to bring about substantial
reforms, but I can assure you that the Prime Minister, the
government and the Department of Human Resources
Development have the vision, the patience and the
determination necessary to modernize our social programs and
to adapt them to the needs of Canadian society and to the
requirements of the next century.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member will know that I have a question.
I was interested in the response to my question about
universality from the colleague who just preceded him. She
said, and I think I wrote it down correctly: ``We have to target to
those in need'', which of course has been the position of the
Reform Party all the way through.
One thing has been really instructive. It perhaps sounds like I
am trying to redo the election of a year ago, but it seems that this
position that we have to target to those in need has been coming
forward from the Liberal members seems to be unique to the
members of the Liberal Party who have been elected to this
House. During the course of the election I did not hear that.
When I said we have to target to those in need, what I heard
from our political adversaries, some of whom happen to belong
to that party, was: ``Oh, you are out to destroy the social
programs. Oh my goodness, what is going to happen now? We
believe in the sanctification of the concept of universality''.
I would like to ask this member exactly the same question.
Perhaps I could ask him if he too would like to reflect back
approximately a year ago, 364 days I believe, the anniversary of
the election being tomorrow. I wonder if during the course of the
election we could find anywhere in any of his speeches or his
public pronouncements where he got up on a soap box and said:
``I, a Liberal candidate in this election, say we have to target our
social programs to those in need'' or if he was like some of the
other people who I was in contest with who were saying: ``No,
no, we can't do that. It must be universality''. Has this member
changed his position from the election?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a well known
concept here of accepting universality. If we look in terms of
health care for example, all Canadians are treated in equal
fashion. It is not an American system, it is a Canadian system.
We can just take that as an example. We do believe in the
universality of treatment. We do not believe in charging user
fees for someone who needs cancer treatment, like they are
doing now in some provinces, one being the province of Quebec
and, if I am not mistaken, in the province of Alberta where they
have made considerable cuts in health care.
7133
(1815 )
It is not the opinion of the government or myself as the
member for Bonaventure-Magdalen Islands to accept such
cuts in that domain.
That being said, the concept of universality in health is
maintained but there are other aspects as well in terms of where
we should reorient our services, the caring for children, trying to
do more for those who are impoverished.
We are also looking at the possibility of maybe reorienting
our program on high income earners for child care. That money
should be used for those who are really in need.
We are looking at universality one way or another across
Canada but at health care where it is really needed. There should
be no class differentiation between a cancer patient in Quebec or
a cancer patient in Alberta. They are all suffering from the same
disease, therefore they should all get the same treatment.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this brief.
I was interested in the hon. member's adamant support for the
universality of our health care system. I would like to compare
the current problem we have in our health care system to that of
buying a car.
If a person wanted to buy a $20,000 vehicle and found that he
had only $15,000 and had to get the other $5,000 from another
source, who should be in control of the car? Should it be the
person who bought the car and put the majority of the money in
or should it be the lender who gave him the $5,000?
Our current health care system is primarily funded by the
provinces yet the federal government wants to call the shots,
dictate the terms of the Canada Health Act. I would like the hon.
member to respond to that.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, health care has nothing to do with
buying a car. It is not a luxury, it is a right. Canadians have the
right to equitable health care across Canada.
If the member wants to continue with these transfer
payments-I am not expressing the government's position, I am
expressing my own personal impressions-the provinces must
recognize that we cannot stand for user fees. One cannot start
creating private clinics across Canada.
We cannot say that because one person has money he will get
cancer treatment and because the other person does not have
money they will go into a U.S. system where they will have to
rely on charitable organizations to pay for their health care.
That is not the Canada I grew up in. That is not the kind of
Canada my grandparents built and believe you me, Mr. Speaker,
my children will remain Canadians, when I have children. We
will still have universality. That is one of the hallmarks of
Canada and especially of our health care system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have been known to
make promises.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
tell you that I am shaken and even bewildered by this Liberal
document on social programs.
There is nothing in that green book save proposals to reform
our system on the backs of the poor. That, in my opinion, is a
step backwards. Where are the commitments made by the
Liberal government in its red book?
When will the government stop treating people in Canada, in
Quebec, and other provinces like gullible fools? The
government is hiding behind vague consultations that will drag
on for months. Countless organizations will express their
disappointment to the committee. They will be listened to
politely when in fact the dice are loaded and decisions have
already been made. The minister will cut $15 billion in social
spending. Those who will be affected are middle and lower class
families.
The reform proposal is a shameful attempt to reduce the
deficit and the debt on the backs of those people. The Liberal
government has a smile on its face while it attacks the poor, not
poverty.
(1820)
Above all, the government is not acting as a good government
should. A good government should be more concerned with
today's realities, that is excessive government spending for day
to day operations and wasteful spending due to the refusal to
abolish overlap between different government levels.
The reform has a very negative impact on those citizens who
want to work and cannot find jobs and for whom there are no
jobs. The government is creating second class unemployment
for workers in uncertain jobs. These workers represent 40 per
cent of the workforce. Among those uncertain jobs, many are
cyclical and seasonal. Ask a lumberman to work when all the
felling is done. Ask a construction worker to build when the
work site is closed. Ask an independent worker to provide
himself with contracts. It is ridiculous.
These people will have to find jobs that do not exist just to
show their good will to the Liberal government. It is totally
ridiculous and even worse because the government won the
election with a platform based on three words: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Was that just wishful thinking? There are still no results. The
Liberal government has not yet understood that people in
precarious jobs are already subject to economic instability. They
want to add to their stress, to their feeling of helplessness and to
their despair.
7134
Another option is the social label. With this reform, the
minister will impose mandatory employability measures,
training programs and community work on the unemployed.
What a mess! Hon. members opposite do not realize that to deal
with structural unemployment, we have to change the structure
of employment. The federal government should let the
Government of Quebec set up its own manpower training
system, and it will save money in the process by reducing
duplication in this area.
Let the provinces be responsible for manpower training.
Social security reform puts groups that have already been
severely hit on the firing line. Young people, single mothers,
seasonal workers, workers who are fifty and over, and the
middle-class will be hit harder than anyone else. On top of that,
they will pay higher premiums and receive lower benefits.
Women will be the first in line. The minister is undermining
their financial independence, which they fought for bit by bit,
for so many years. And it gets even worse. Is this the Liberal
government's vision of the future? When the spouse's income
becomes a factor that determines eligibility for unemployment
insurance benefits? Does this mean women have the right to
work but are not entitled to unemployment insurance if they lose
their jobs?
The federal government is not focusing on the real problems.
It sharpens the differences between classes in society. The gap
between the rich and people on middle- and low-incomes will
get wider. Society is becoming polarized. Furthermore, the
government is introducing cuts in transfers to the provinces for
post-secondary education, cuts totalling several billion dollars,
which represents about $300 million for Quebec.
With cuts like these in post-secondary education programs,
CEGEPs and universities will have to raise and even double
their tuition fees. It is clear that education will become an
impossible dream for students of modest means.
(1825)
Students from socially disadvantaged families will have a
clear choice: either they go deep into debt or they can forget
about higher education. Yes, the choice is clear. Only one class
in society will be able to afford higher education: students from
rich and wealthy families.
To this, the Bloc Quebecois says no. We refuse to set the clock
back twenty years. Access to higher education is everyone's
right, a the right that students alone should be able to exercise on
the basis of personal choice, and not on the basis of whether they
can afford it. Students cannot afford to go into debt to get an
education, and the minister's answer to that is unrealistic. He
talks about using RRSPs. How can a student use an RRSP he
does not have? The minister of course, will say he is referring to
the parents RRSPs. Yes, but the truth is that middle-class
parents need their RRSPs to live on during their retirement. If
they were able to contribute to an RRSP, it was because they
made certain sacrifices.
The Bloc Quebecois is convinced the social security reform
proposals presented by the Liberal government are merely a tool
to strengthen Ottawa's centralist tendencies. The federal
government is using every means at its disposal to appropriate
the jurisdictions of the provinces and has no desire to cut
wasteful spending and duplication.
The Chrétien government is cutting social programs instead
of providing for consistent and comprehensive job-centred
policies. It wants to reform the unemployed instead of dealing
with unemployment. It is using this reform to become more and
more involved in areas over which the provinces have exclusive
jurisdiction.
Has the minister not considered some legitimate budget cuts?
It would make more sense to work on recovery of bad debts
totalling around $6 billion. Withdrawing from areas of
provincial jurisdiction would save another $3 billion. Tax
reform would provide an opportunity to measure and control the
deficit. Hundreds of millions could be recovered in the process.
Consider family trusts. I am sure that with the approach it has
selected to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt and foreign
interest payments, the government is on the wrong track.
What we need is genuine reform, genuine tax reform that will
give us the resources we need to put the country's finances back
on track.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we hear about
provincial and federal jurisdictions. Some say that the federal
government is interfering in programs that are administered by
Quebec.
Friday, I read in the Le Soleil the Lise Bissonnette's editorial
about the costly failure of education in Quebec. According to an
internal report of the Commission des écoles catholiques de
Montréal on the drop-out problem in high school, the situation
is a real mess. Now, this is the province's jurisdiction, Mr.
Speaker. In the same editorial, I read that 46 per cent of the
students registered in the French sector of the CECM drop out of
school. That is what provincial jurisdiction gives us.
I also read that 3,000 young people, 50 per cent of whom are
under 16, drop out of school on Montreal Island. Again, this is
the province's jurisdiction. I also learned that in the
disadvantaged areas of Montreal Island, eight students out of ten
do not finish their secondary education. That study was done by
the Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal. I also read
that generally speaking 35 per cent of Quebecers do not finish
high school and that Quebec comes in one of the last among
developed countries. I think it is time we stop hiding the truth
and stop accusing the federal government. We have proof of
what we say.
7135
(1830)
Lise Bissonnette, who writes the editorial in a famous
nationalist newspaper, challenges the Government of Quebec to
address the problem once and for all. We have been waiting for
20 years to see Quebec assume its true responsibilities. It has the
jurisdiction, let it exercise it. Now, we are told that the federal
should transfer its powers to the province, but Quebec is not
doing its homework.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher in a Quebec
composite high school, I must say that what is being described
as a bad education system, is not. The 46 per cent that are being
mentioned are students who drop out because they are not
offered appropriate courses. The people who decide on the
curriculum are being dictated to by Ottawa, and yet, the only one
who knows what students need in their schools is the Quebec
government. We have to take these statistics with a grain of salt.
If we have a 46 per cent drop-out rate, it is because we do not
give these students the means to fulfil themselves; this will only
happen when the Quebec government has full authority, when it
holds the levers of power. Only then will we be able to take
charge and give our students, girls and boys alike, all the options
they need to fulfil themselves.
This is sure to have an impact on unemployment rates. In an
area like mine, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, what is the
use of training welders when, as we are talking, the
unemployment rate is 16 per cent, and they are not in demand?
We must train people in the branches for which there is a need.
Only Quebec can pinpoint these branches.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 5, the Minister of Human Resources Development
unveiled a document entitled: ``Agenda: Jobs and
Growth-Improving Social Security in Canada''.
First, I would like to say that this work plan is misleading, and
that the title itself is tantamount to false representation. Of
course, the green book deals with jobs, but to my utter
disappointment and that of all those who read it, growth is never
mentioned.
It says on page 19, and I quote:
Many Canadian families lost economic ground during the 1980s and early
1990s. Overall, the average disposable household income has not grown since
the early 1980s.
In recent years, increasing numbers of Canadians who cannot find jobs have
turned to social assistance.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, more than three million people
depend on social assistance, and this does not include some
960,000 workers who currently receive unemployment
insurance. This, of course, does not include those who qualify
neither for social assistance nor for unemployment insurance.
This is a disgraceful and intolerable situation in a country which
claims to have the best social security system in the world.
When faced with such facts, how can the minister argue that
he is talking about growth! He should have added the word debt
in the title. It would have read: The growth of the debt and the
social security of the future. It would have been a much more
accurate title for his discussion paper and for the measures he
intends to propose.
(1835)
To me, this draft action plan is simply a monograph on the
state of employment in this country and the incapacity of federal
programs to answer job creation needs.
The social security that the minister is seeking for the future
in Canada will disappear sooner or later. This is the real agenda
of the Minister of Human Resources Development and of the
federal government he represents.
I should also say that the Prime Minister's speech conceals
the real intentions of his government. He tried to make us
believe that he feels for those who can no longer find jobs. In a
speech before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he said:
``We do not provide Canadians with sufficient assistance to find
jobs and to keep their jobs. They do not get enough help from us
to acquire the knowledge and expertise that will allow them to
compete world-wide''.
Paradoxically, this reform proposal, apparently designed to
help the government make its system more cost-effective, will
bring about major cuts in UI benefits, index-linked cuts in
provincial transfer payments for social assistance and
substantial cuts in provincial transfer payments for
post-secondary education.
The Prime Minister talks about investing in our human
resources and in learning. Why does his minister suggest that
cuts be made in manpower training and income security
programs then? Whom are we to believe? The Minister of
Human Resources Development, the Prime Minister or the
Minister of Finance, who is calling for major cuts? Which of
them are we to believe?
The real purpose of this social programs reform is not to
promote job creation and learning but rather to initiate the
Minister of Finance's budget cuts. And this means cutting
blindly in social programs across the board.
A secret document submitted to the federal Cabinet and
published by the Toronto Star on October 5, indicated that
another $7.5 billion in cuts over the next five years were
contemplated, in addition to the $7.5 billion already announced
in the last budget.
Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources Development
tells us on page 23 of his paper:
7136
If further measures are required to achieve the government's deficit target, they will
be included in the 1995 Budget.
Mr. Speaker, they could not be more explicit.
The federal government's main objectives are clear: the first
is literally to cut social programs and the second is to take
control over areas of provincial jurisdiction, by maintaining a
unilateral decision.
From reading the green paper, I see that most of the options
presented are centralizing. So what are the Liberal government's
real intentions?
First, it wants to take back large amounts from the poor and
the middle class, then it sneaks into areas of provincial
jurisdiction without even touching on the Canadian
Constitution.
We must admit that the federal Liberal government timed its
operation well. It waited for the results of the election in Quebec
to present its draft working plan. Moreover, the minister now
thinks that he can delay tabling his reform until the fall of 1995.
We now understand why the Prime Minister insists that
Quebec hold the referendum on sovereignty within eight to ten
months. The Prime Minister wants Quebecers to vote in the
referendum before the social program reform is tabled.
The minister cannot go on hiding his intentions on the pretext
that he wants to consult the people and the provinces some more.
What, quite frankly, has this government been doing for a year
now but consulting and reconsulting? And without really doing
that much, we might add.
Since the minister showed no consideration for the first phase
of consultation on unemployment insurance reform, why would
it be different for his social program reform?
We in Quebec note that the federal government's timetable is
based mainly on political events in Quebec, which confirms our
fear that it wants to attack the jurisdiction of Quebec and of the
other provinces.
(1840)
As the Official Opposition party in the House of Commons,
the Bloc Quebecois will participate in the reform consultation
process, even though we feel that the government has already
made its bed. Be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will be there to
defend Quebecers' interests. We also hope that the minister will
have the decency to table his reform before the referendum on
Quebec sovereignty.
Quebecers have a right to know what the federal government
is plotting behind this whole reform. They will not be had a
second time like in 1980. As we all remember, to win his cause,
Prime Minister Trudeau told the people that no meant yes, and
we know what happened next, namely the unilateral repatriation
of the Constitution without Quebec's consent, followed by the
rejection of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
My colleagues from Timiskaming and
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who sit on the Standing Committee
on Finance, have already made concrete and realistic
suggestions for eliminating the federal deficit without touching
social programs. These suggestions are as follows. First,
recovering bad debts, which would bring in some $6 billion.
Second, the federal government's complete withdrawal from
areas of provincial jurisdiction, which would generate at least
$3 billion. Third, reforming taxation of family trusts, which
would bring in between $300 million and $400 million. Fourth,
cutting subsidies to unproductive and non-competitive
businesses, which could save $3.3 billion. Fifth, cutting the
defence budget by $1.6 billion. Sixth, withdrawing at once from
Hibernia, which will cost federal coffers $250 million this year.
These are concrete measures proposed by the Official
Opposition to help eliminate the federal deficit without
touching social programs.
In conclusion, this paper should have put more emphasis on
the diversity of our labour markets and, as indicated by the polls
commissioned by the Department of Human Resources
Development, on the need to delegate to the provinces the
responsibility of employment services programs as well as
vocational training for welfare recipients.
Instead, with its reform, the federal government persists in
trying to reduce the deficit at the expense of the poorest and of
the middle class. The Liberal government targets those who
already have nothing, namely the poor. In its discussion paper,
the government uses the word employment in an abusive way,
for there is no mention of any job creation strategy in it. Instead
of tackling the problems of waste, mismanagement and lack of
jobs, the federal government now targets the unemployed and
the middle class.
I will end by saying that a member of Parliament also has a
responsibility to protect the poorest in our society. We must
represent all our fellow citizens and in particular those who are
most often victim of prejudice or rejection: the poor, the
unemployed, our seniors and, in particular, our young families. I
sincerely think that this social program reform will not solve
any of the problems which the government wants to tackle.
_____________________________________________
7136
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn to adjourn the House under Standing
Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.
7137
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
September 19, in this House, I asked a question of the Minister
of Finance.
(1845)
I stressed the fact that, according to Statistics Canada, the
unemployment rate had risen by 0.7 per cent in August in
Quebec and that it stood at 12.2 per cent. I said that in spite of a
slight economic recovery and given the increase in population,
Quebec still needed 210,000 jobs to reach its pre-recession level
of employment.
Therfore I asked the Minister why did he not decide to create
jobs by proposing concrete measures?
That was in September. We are now at the end of October and I
must say that unemployment in Quebec is still at 12.2 per cent
and the minister replied that 77,000 jobs had been created since
the beginning of the year. These figures must be adjusted
downwards because 28,000 jobs were lost last month, and 4,000
the month before.
This means that, despite the recovery, and despite the fact that
the economic situation of Quebec may seem bright, it does not
make any difference for the workers. Unemployment is still
officially at 12.2 per cent and there are no forthcoming
government initiatives that might help Quebec get out of this
difficult situation.
I also asked the Minister of Finance when he would be
reducing the UI premiums in order to lighten the burden of
small- and medium-sized companies? When? The opposition
has been denouncing the increase in UI premiums for over a year
now.
The minister said it was an excellent question and that he was
going to, but he did not. I will ask him again, and we will keep
asking, even more so because he makes Quebec and Quebecers
pay a high price in the first phase of the unemployment
insurance reform. Billions, we now know it, billions have been
accumulating in the unemployment insurance fund. The
minister, contrary to what he says, contrary to what we can read
in the green book, does not care about job creation, in Quebec at
least, since he seems satisfied with the present situation.
I can only repeat my question: When is he going to lower
unemployment insurance premiums? We cannot accept any
other answer than an agreement to lower them now.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out,
employment in Quebec continues to be below its pre-recession
peak. This is an unacceptable situation, which this government
intends to correct.
The weak employment situation in the province reflects the
loss of 135,000 jobs and the rise in the unemployment rate of
more than four percentage points in the three and a half years
prior to the election of this government.
In less than a year since this government was elected, over
half that loss has been recovered. From October 1993 to
September 1994, full-time employment has increased by
102,000 in Quebec and the unemployment rate has fallen a full
percentage point, from 13.2 per cent to 12.2 per cent).
At this rate Quebec will reach its pre-recession peak in seven
months. The recent strong employment growth in Quebec and
across Canada has been helped by this government's freezing of
the UI premiums below the required statutory rate in 1994; and
the implementation of the $6 billion Federal Infrastructure
Program to encourage capital expenditures.
Employment growth will be further helped by a rollback in the
UI premium rate in 1995, as announced in the 1994 Budget.
The changes in the UI program announced in the last budget
and the additional changes which will result from Minister
Axworthy's social security reform will allow further reduction
in UI premiums in the future. Because of lower payroll taxes,
businesses in Quebec will find it easier to create jobs.
We have reasons to be optimistic that employment growth
will continue. Employment growth in the past two quarters has
been the strongest in more than five years.
Furthermore, growth in the economy is gaining momentum.
In the second quarter, the real GDP grew 6.4 per cent (annual
rate), up strongly from about four per cent in the previous two
quarters and in 1993 as a whole.
All sectors of the economy are now contributing to and
reinforcing the growth in employment. Surging exports led to a
record real trade surplus in July. Strong growth in current and
planned investments in non-residential construction indicates
firms are beginning to expand their production capacity, which
will require more employees.
Improving employment prospects have boosted consumer
confidence and consumer spending.
However, for Quebec to share fully in the strong employment
growth outlook for the Canadian economy as a whole, the
political uncertainty about Quebec's future within Canada needs
to be resolved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)