CONTENTS
Thursday, February 3, 1994
Consideration resumed of motion 847
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 849
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 852
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 856
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 859
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 865
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 865
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 867
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 868
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 871
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 876
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 880
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 882
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 882
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 886
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 886
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 886
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 886
Mr. Duceppe 889 Mr. Collenette 889
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 890
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 890
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 891
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 891
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 891
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 892
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 892
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 892
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 893
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 893
Consideration resumed of motion 894
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 895
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 899
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 899
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 903
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 904
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 906
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 908
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 910
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 912
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 915
Division on motion deferred 918
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 921
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 922
847
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 3, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, you may have noticed this early
in the morning that we have a new mace on the table. This
wooden mace was used when the House of Commons, the Centre
Block, burned down in the fire in 1916. Every year on this date
we commemorate the date of the fire by using this mace.
As we were walking down I heard someone say: ``No, we did
not melt down the old one, we do have it and we are going to
bring it in tomorrow''.
This is to remind us that things get a little bit hot in here
sometimes and we have to know we can survive and take the
heat.
[Translation]
We are all here together as Canadian citizens and it is very
important that we work together for the well-being of all our
people.
[English]
That is what the mace represents and I just wanted to bring it
to your attention.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition pointing out that single income
families with special needs children have not only a unique
challenge but incur extra expenditures in raising their child or
children.
Often one or other of the parents have no choice but to stay at
home. Frequently the children must be sent to specialized day
care centres incurring extra costs, sometimes significant extra
costs.
These petitioners believe that the current system of taxation is
unfair to them. They would like a review by the government of
this particular situation as it looks at all of the difficulties and
the unfairness that exists in our tax system.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, it is
my duty to present a petition on behalf of more than two dozen
citizens, most of whom live in my riding of Winnipeg-St.
James. Pursuant to Standing Order 36 the document has been
certified correct as to form and content.
The petition reflects the concern these people have regarding
the language policy of the federal government. It proposes a
referendum on the issue. This would be a national referendum
involving all electors in the provinces and territories.
I humbly present this petition to Parliament for its due
consideration.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Should all questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the
motion.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, the motion before the House asks the House of
Commons and a committee of the House to study, analyse and
report on Canada's social security system. As a matter of fact, it
asks that we study the modernization and restructuring of the
social security system with special reference to the needs of
families with children, youth and working age adults. It is
commendable
848
that we study, analyse and revisit our social programs, our
income support and income replacement programs. However I
want to remind the House and the minister that there are some
things we should keep in mind. We will encounter serious
difficulties in doing this examination of our social security
system.
(1010)
I want to remind the House that this was done with some
intensity in the 1970s when the Hon. Marc Lalonde was the
Minister of National Health and Welfare. A very serious attempt
was made to rationalize and bring up to date our social security
system. While some good improvements were made at that time,
some of the simplistic approaches that were first suggested were
found not to be workable.
We have different types of social security systems. We have
those where the payment is universal and comes out of our
general tax revenue, for example the old age security system.
We all pay into it in varying degrees through our progressive tax
system but at age 65 we all receive the same payment no matter
what our income is. On top of that we have the guaranteed
income supplement which pays additional amounts to people
who do not have other sources of income, who do not have
private pensions or RRSPs or whatever. That is one kind of
social security support system where the payment is the same to
all individuals. I am talking about old age security which is paid
for through the general tax system.
We have other types of programs such as unemployment
insurance and the Canada assistance plan. Depending on our
income we pay in varying amounts. If we have lower incomes
we pay in less. If we have higher incomes we pay in more. When
we collect we receive more if we have paid in more and we
collect less if we have paid in less.
The principle behind it makes sense. The highly skilled
worker who pays the top premium because he has a higher
income will have made commitments and entered into debt for
homes, cars, household appliances. When unemployed he still
has to meet those higher commitments so he gets a higher
payment. But he has been paying in at a higher rate.
It is the same with the Canada pension plan. If we have paid in
at a higher rate we get a higher payment at the end but it is
usually because we have been living at a higher standard of
living. Usually the rent, mortgage and other payments are higher
and when we retire or are unemployed we need that.
When they tried to rationalize all these systems back in the
1970s they found that to put together a flat payment system with
the systems that were based on varying contributions and
varying payments was not an easy task. As a matter of fact they
were not able to do it. I bring that to the attention of the House.
Some programs are geared to meet the types of debt and
commitment we have made while we are working. When we
become unemployed or when we retire or when we are forced to
leave work because of injury or disability we need payments that
will meet that type of commitment.
For example we do not want skilled workers to have to sell
their homes simply because they are unemployed or because
they are retired. To suggest we should have one payment for
everybody no matter what they have been doing when they were
working does not make sense. It could drive a lot of people into
poverty and that is not what we want to do.
I want to refer also to the unemployment insurance system.
There has been some suggestion that, and I do not know whether
it goes that far, in order to collect unemployment insurance one
should be obliged to participate in training programs or in some
type of community work or whatever.
First let us deal with the training programs. It is a fact that a
good number of our unemployed are highly trained already.
They are skilled. They are machinists, electricians, architects,
professional people and trades people with highly skilled trades.
Their problem is not training, it is the lack of jobs. To suggest
the solution to all our problems is to simply retrain or upgrade
everybody is not correct.
(1015)
It is true a large number of people cannot find work because
their trades are out of date or they have no trade whatsoever or
they are illiterate. Those are the people we have to train and
make competitive with the people in the United States, Europe,
Japan. I fully support that. However, let us not overdo it and
suggest that the total solution is to retrain everybody. Many
people come to my office and probably to my colleague's office
every day who are trained but their problem is jobs, not training.
We hear another suggestion on the street. It is terrible these
people are on unemployment insurance and they should be made
to do some kind of work until they get a job. One of the major
tasks of the unemployed person is to look for work. It is a time
consuming undertaking. If unemployed people are serious, and
most of them are, they spend a lot of time going for interviews,
searching the newspapers and writing letters. They want to get
back to work in the field in which they are competent.
Let us be careful so that this sort of work fair is not overdone.
To put to work or in training programs as a condition for
receiving benefits certain young people who are in good health
but have no training is fine, but let us be very careful that we do
not overdo it.
849
I want to remind the House and my own party that in the two
previous parliaments we savagely attacked the Conservative
government for the amendments it made to the unemployment
insurance system, amendments that made it more difficult to
qualify and amendments that reduced the benefits. In a previous
set of amendments, it increased the penalty for those who quit or
were fired without cause, as defined in the act, up to about 11 or
12 weeks. This was quite a considerable increase in the penalty.
In the last round of amendments in 1993 the Conservative
government took away all benefits from people who had quit
their jobs for serious reasons but could not meet the definition of
just cause in the act. It was the same with those who were fired,
according to the bosses for just cause, but which was very often
in the mind of the employee not a just cause. It was simply a case
of harassment or trying to get rid of those people with trumped
up charges against them.
We questioned the minister at that time. We said: ``Well you
just amended the act a couple of years ago to increase the
penalties from six weeks to twelve weeks''-or whatever it
was-``and now you are completely eliminating any benefits at
all. You are going to a very extreme penalty without ever really
testing the penalties that you put into place a few years ago''.
We attacked those sorts of things. We attacked the
government for totally removing the $2.8 billion that the
government used to contribute to the unemployment insurance
fund. Prior to those amendments in the last Parliament, the
Government of Canada always contributed to the fund after the
unemployment rate went over a certain level. The other
contributions to the fund came from workers and from
employers. It was a three way contribution: the employers, the
employees and the Government of Canada. The Government of
Canada then withdrew its contribution of $2.8 billion and put the
entire burden on workers and employers. The rates went up.
They were another form of taxation. We were very critical of
that. We said that was not the way to do it.
(1020 )
What happened is by doing these things to the unemployment
insurance system, by cutting back the benefits, by making it
more difficult to qualify, by throwing people out of work
without any benefits whatsoever in some cases, it simply shifted
the burden to take care of those people to the provinces and to
the municipalities. When people do not have work and they
cannot find work someone has to support them. We are not living
in a cruel, inhumane society. We do not let people starve to
death. What happened was the provincial social security
systems had to pick up those people and take care of them. In
Ontario and Nova Scotia the cities had to and they could not
afford it. It was simply a shifting of the burden.
I am trying to remind the House and my party that I fully
support this re-examination of social security. However, I am
also reminding them that we have to be very careful in not
overdoing it to the extent that we are cruel, inhumane,
insensitive, unfair and unjust.
Let us study, let us recommend, let us save money if we can
through a better delivery system, let us eliminate duplication.
Let us not take benefits away from those who worked for years
and years, built this country and contributed to funds, such as
the old age security fund. Let us not take benefits away from
those who worked and contributed to unemployment insurance.
Let us not make our workers slaves of their bosses.
Let us be consistent, I say to my own party, with what we said
in opposition. Let us be consistent with what we said in the
campaign. Let us be credible. Let us be fair, just and
compassionate in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
speech by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, an
excellent speech by a 28-year veteran of this House who is very
experienced in parliamentary matters and also very
knowledgeable about Quebec, since he comes from Quebec.
However, there is something that surprises me. I have been a
member of Parliament for nine and a half years, and from time to
time people have come to my office with serious problems
caused by inconsistencies-we have mentioned this before-in
the area of manpower and training programs. In fact the
situation is far worse than we think.
I would like to mention one example I think is absolutely
inhumane. Some people who were on unemployment insurance
after losing their jobs were taking courses funded by the federal
government. These people, who were between the ages of 30 and
45, had decided to finish their fourth and fifth year of high
school in order to graduate. They were in fact encouraged to do
their third, fourth or fifth year. Unfortunately the unemployment
insurance regulations are inconsistent with the rules of the
Quebec school commission. For instance, these people had to
take classes during the summer to finish their course. The
Unemployment Insurance Commission told them they could not
stop working or stop taking courses for more than two weeks.
As everybody knows, in Quebec, because of the unions and
the government, teachers have to stop for a month during the
summer, which meant the courses were automatically cancelled.
Most of these people had almost finished their courses but they
could not continue because Quebec's regulations were not
consistent with Ottawa's. As a result, these people who had
850
worked very hard for one, two or even three years were
penalized, because if they wanted to continue later on, they
would have to pay for the courses themselves.
Now this is an incredible example. It is inhumane, when you
consider the time and effort involved. I would like to ask the
hon. member who is an experienced politician whether as a
member from Quebec, he intends to work on this issue and
ensure that manpower training is transferred to Quebec as soon
as possible, so that Quebecers can take their courses and keep
their dignity as human beings and also save some money. The
duplication and inconsistencies make this system truly
inhumane. Does the hon. member, as a member from Quebec,
intend to ensure this problem is dealt with once and for all?
(1025)
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon.
member that there are provisions now in the Unemployment
Insurance Act that are ridiculous and have to be changed.
One of them is the provision that we had historically that one
had to be ready and available for work at all times in order to
collect benefits. That meant that somebody who took a course
was not ready and available for work because they were studying
during the day. Those studies were essential in my view and in
the view of many people to prepare that person for a job.
There were amendments a few years ago that allowed people
to do study programs while they were on unemployment
insurance but unfortunately one needs the permission of the
unemployment insurance officials to do that. That permission is
not always given. In my view it should be almost automatic.
I also said in my remarks that I am fully in agreement with
taking steps to eliminate duplication between the provincial
programs and the federal programs to get rid of waste in the
delivery systems and so on. I would hope as a Quebecer that we
could reach an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa to
eliminate the inconsistencies between the federal
unemployment insurance program and the provincial welfare
system.
The elimination of the duplication is essential. The provinces
should have prior jurisdiction in matters of education and
training. That was the position put forward in the Charlottetown
accord. Consequently we have to work out agreements that will
satisfy the provinces in this matter and stop the fighting between
the federal and provincial levels. We have to make sure that we
have programs that are efficient and meet the situation that was
put forward by my good friend from Longueuil.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of our caucus co-ordinator I would like to
advise the House that our party will be dividing the speaking
time in accordance with Standing Order 43.
It is with a great deal of pride that I stand to give my first
address here today as I join with my fellow MPs in this place of
history and decision. This country, of which we are proud
citizens, has given to us the responsibility to guide the direction
of the ship of state in the next several years. The responsibility is
awesome indeed. There are many potential dangers ahead in the
presence of existing cracks in our vessel. Each of us in this
Chamber will play a role in the challenging task to bring Canada
to its port of safety.
It is my honour to have been elected to serve the people of Port
Moody-Coquitlam. On the north side of the Fraser River on the
outskirts of Vancouver we enjoy the beauty of the mountains and
the temperate climate of the west coast.
As one of the fastest growing districts in Canada we are
blessed with five thriving communities. Families from all
nationalities and backgrounds have chosen to call this area their
home. With its central location in the beautiful Fraser Valley so
much of the employment and customer pool of this lower
mainland is within easy reach. Originally containing the western
terminus of the rail line in Port Moody, we now host a myriad of
small businesses complimented by a busy port and rail
connections.
I must pause and thank my family for its part in allowing me
to take this responsibility. I have always made by husband and
my two girls a very real priority and it was concern for them that
crystallized my political choices. As I am sure every MP can
already testify, this task that we are taking on demands
sacrifices of both time and energy. Doug, Carolyn and Kathy, I
want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your love,
support and understanding.
A sincere thanks to all those who voted for me. A special
thank you to those who worked so hard in my campaign leading
up to the election.
It is especially important to me to recognize that it is the
people of Port Moody and Coquitlam who sent me here to
represent them regardless of political stripe. I will honour the
trust they have given to me, an ordinary citizen, to be their eyes
and ears here in Ottawa and I will speak out for them on issues
that affect their homes and our community.
The people of Port Moody-Coquitlam have told me that our
country needs healing. Canada is critically ill with a half trillion
dollar federal debt.
(1030 )
This one fact alone dictates the treatment for so many of its
other complications. Where are the sore spots? Government
policies are affecting the people I represent in real ways. It is not
ink on a line, it is people and their families in their daily lives,
their ability to find work, their sense of security, their openness
851
of heart to new ideas from around the world. That is what I want
to talk about.
In Port Moody-Coquitlam one sore spot becomes apparent
as we talk about roads and transportation systems,
infrastructure, if you please. Our unique area is understandably
one of the fastest growing municipalities in all of Canada.
Coquitlam alone is projected to double in size by the year 2021.
Even today traffic is in gridlock. The history of non action is too
complicated to address here but even the federal government has
a part in it.
Campaign promises of a previous losing government have
made an equal provincial-federal cost sharing program a
political football. Hope still exists for $16 billion or, better yet,
equal funding for what is now a $120 million rail proposal.
What is our government's response? I ask not for more
spending but about some of the areas in which expenditures are
deemed more worthy than others. What makes these areas? Let
decision making bodies such as the infrastructure panel include
representations from those most affected by its decisions,
elected representatives from all three levels of government.
Who better than the municipalities themselves to best represent
their own needs?
Sore points two, three and four would be taxes, taxes and
taxes. When will the government realize that Canadians are fed
up with its spending and borrowing and the taxes that go with it?
I have talked with many small business owners from the tire
dealer forced to reduce staff from 25 to three, to the community
minded hotel owner who sees perspective investors come and
leave, scared off by increased tax burdens. I have talked with
family wage earners frustrated and plain mad that they cannot
make progress.
This government talks about jobs. Careers and family income
come from secure jobs within small business. It is folly for
government in the name of fairness to tax away the job creators.
The removal of capital gains or RRSP deductions and higher or
broader tax bases will force more of our job creators across the
border or out of business if they come here to start with.
Higher taxes on the individual put more pressure on families.
Government spending must be reduced, not taxes increased, to
help job creation. Jobs will be there by letting business do
business.
What of those who need special help? Those who need the
social programs of which Canadians are so proud? There is an
infinite distance between the theory we see in some bureaucratic
descriptions and the reality in our homes and on our streets. The
social safety net does not need cutting, it needs to be saved from
self-destruction, to be there for those who really need it. We
must bring social programs back to their original purpose.
Unemployment insurance was originally designed to give
temporary support for unexpected job loss. Welfare was there to
support those who could not support themselves.
Take the sore point of unemployment insurance. In case
number one, a young mother I talked to because of her honesty
could not fill all the spaces in her day care but she could not
afford to give up her partial UI supplement, so in turn she had to
give up her day care or close her business.
In case number two, a well meaning pipefitter enrolled in a
course but did not give proper notice and lost all his UI benefits.
Case number three is a government induced non productivity
where west coast fishermen use UI as a supplement to yearly
earnings already that are well in excess of national average
because the government owes them as much.
Real job training and apprenticeship programs not by
government but by business will put people back to work. There
is no shortage of research on what must be done. We need
government action not further studies.
My constituents have identified more sore points. I am proud
of the tenacity of the Belcarra Council that spearheaded a
national petition of municipal councils in protest over the
present Young Offenders act. It put work and time behind the
message I hear from citizens from parents to policemen. The
present government must listen to Canadians as they tell it to
reduce age limits and raise repeat serious young offenders to
adult court. It is a poor system as we have lately seen that allows
convicted criminals loose on our streets. Members of the public
demand that their protection once again be the primary focus of
government programs.
(1035)
This message ends with one final concern. We welcome the
increased participation and friendship of people from all parts of
the globe. Our neighbourhoods proudly represent a microcosm
of a broad, cultural and language mosiac. There is a common
belief by all residents, new and older Canadians, that each one of
us must be equal as individuals before and under the law and the
privileges of this land.
Labels must be removed and not applied in ever new ways so
that we come together as a people, proud to be Canadian first of
all and proud to support our own heritage within that context.
We must address the issue of our national identity for a nation
with no identity is no nation at all.
I urge the present government to hear Canadians from all
backgrounds tell it that they want most of all to be Canadian.
New Canadians need to have the opportunity and access to jobs
852
and must be given that opportunity by wise immigration
policies. It is the economic health of all Canadians that will
dictate the social and economic climate that all must share.
I intend to scrutinize all government initiatives in
multiculturalism and immigration and actively participate to
make those initiatives more closely reflect the views of ordinary
Canadians.
I salute my fellow Canadians as they watch the proceedings of
this 35th Parliament. As Canadians we must never forget the
richness of the land and the potential of its future. May we see
past the quick fixes and easy solutions to work toward solutions
that will provide a solid future of prosperity. That future is very
possible as we have been blessed with so much.
As stewards of the abundant resources of this land and its
people we must seek to be wise in our decisions and
compassionate in our hearts.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on her
address. I listened attentively and I appreciate a number of the
comments. I agree wholeheartedly that most Canadian
taxpayers really believe they pay too much-and I also believe
that they do-and there is anger out there. They are angry.
My question is not a trick question. It is a very important one
to me. I am trying to find out whether or not it is true that rich
and influential families can in fact shield some or a great part of
their wealth through trust funds. If it is true that a certain
number of wealthy Canadians pay no taxes at all, that a number
of profitable corporations supposedly pay no taxes, that clever
people with the human resources as well as other resources are
able to shield or protect some of their money by taking it to
foreign countries, is it still appropriate then to ignore these
people or perhaps ask them to pay their fair share?
Thereby we probably would improve the economic health of
the country and help to protect those programs we have. It does
not mean they need not be changed in order to be more efficient.
Would my colleague care to comment on that?
Mrs. Hayes: I thank the hon. member for his kind comments
and question.
As I have stated Canadians do feel they are being overtaxed.
What the hon. member has expressed is a very real concern of an
ordinary Canadian: Why is it that I have a burden whereas it
seems other people do not, perhaps even the most wealthy.
Unfortunately the rules of the game in our present world are
that capital is becoming more and more international. The rules
of the game are that money cannot be forced to be maintained in
one country. That very fact dictates that Canada has to become
very wise in its economic decisions.
The rich as the hon. member said can take their money and
invest it in other countries. Corporations can move.
As I said in my speech the producers of our wealth and the
producers of our jobs can move elsewhere. Thus it becomes that
much more important for us to make sure that this, our country,
is a place where they want to invest, where they want to bring
their talents and their jobs. Then the rest of us can have jobs by
that. Sure, they need to do their part, but we have to do our part
to bring them here. I do not think we have done that in the last
short while.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I totally agree
with the hon. member when she says that we definitely should
not raise taxes.
We have reached the limit and people are just about to break
out in revolt. Her leader said that people would rebel and I think
he is right. People are going to look for all sorts of ways to stop
paying taxes.
It is obvious that the middle class is overburdened with taxes.
Those who have a bit more money or a better education are
leaving Canada. Last year, more than 400 physicians left Canada
for United States. It costs the nation about $2 million to train one
physician and we have a situtation here where 400 moved to
United States.
What we should do, and I think my hon. colleague is right
about this, is find better ways of managing our social affairs.
There is a lot of waste at the management level. I do not want to
see less services, but I want to see a lot less management. We
have to decentralize, to make individuals, municipalities and
provinces more responsible. The federal government could set
the guidelines, but social affairs should be managed at the
grassroots level if were are going to provide services to people
who need them rather than to bureaucrats.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments.
I agree that the middle class is maintaining a burden of what is
happening in the tax load of our country. We are losing our best
brains, our best job producers because of poor economic
policies here.
I would take it a step further. I would take it to the very root.
This was mentioned by my colleague yesterday. The society that
we live in has had the tendency to be dependent on government
doing things for its members, whether that be federal, provincial
or municipal. I would like to see our country becoming one
where Canadians care about Canadians. Perhaps even at that
lower level, as families and as communities we are able to
address the needs especially in the social sector where they need
to be addressed.
853
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, the
government has embarked on the first step in democratizing
Parliament by allowing free debates such as this one on the
future of Canada's social programs. For that it really should be
commended. I hope it will soon finish the job by allowing free
votes on these issues we are debating.
So as to keep our heads on straight during this emotionally
charged debate I think there are a few questions we should be
asking ourselves as we begin the much needed overhaul of
Canada's social programs. In fact I believe these are questions
we should always ask ourselves in our role as parliamentarians.
The first question we need to ask is: Does the federal
government need to be involved at all in resolving this problem?
Can it be more effectively dealt with by other levels of
government, by business or through private sector organizations
or even charities?
In response to that question there is no doubt in my mind that a
completely overhauled unemployment insurance program could
be run by employers and employees themselves. This of course
is what many have been asking for. In essence this was the
recommendation of the highly respected findings of the Forget
commission in 1986.
With respect to health care and welfare it is important that we
recognize that the provinces are in charge of the administration
of these crucial programs. We should let them continue to lead
the way in progressive and meaningful reform. Newfoundland,
New Brunswick and Alberta are all bringing forward exciting
new approaches to income support and supplementation.
Alberta is also proposing bold new initiatives in health care. Out
of these varied approaches will come a synthesis, an idea, a
program that combines the best of all.
In both areas however the provinces are limited in the scope of
the reform by the strictures of federal legislation. I encourage
the federal government to put everything on the table in its
initiative to bring change to health care and social programs.
(1045)
The second question we should be asking is: Will this decision
lead to a long-term solution, or is it a short-term band-aid fix
that helps in the short run but creates problems of its own in the
long run.
I would argue that the changes made to unemployment
insurance over the last 23 years have not only led to ever rising
premiums and a bankrupt program, more important it has led to
dependency on government, a problem whose economic and
human costs are incalculable. For the sake of Canadians let us
ensure we have the courage to design social programs and health
care reform that promote personal responsibility and initiative.
The third question we have to ask is: Are all the stakeholders
involved in making these decisions or is it the top down, my way
or the highway approach?
How many task force reports and royal commission reports
now serve as chair props and doorstops because governments
were not committed to following through on the
recommendations that flowed from the people of the country?
How many times have governments committed to a process of
consultation only to ignore the comments they do not like?
The government should listen extra hard to the people who
fund the health care system to find out what services they are
willing to pay for. The government should listen especially hard
to the people who fund unemployment insurance to find out
where it needs changing. The government should strain to hear
from the people who fund social assistance to see how that
program can be improved.
The fourth question we need to ask is: Will this decision make
government more user friendly and more accessible, or will it
increase paperwork and layers of bureaucracy?
Canada's social programs today are a nightmare. They are
designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats and woe is the user who
dares to verse his social program without his trusty bureaucrat at
his side. The design needs to come from the people who use the
programs. To do otherwise is to dehumanize further and make
even more wasteful an institution, and I speak here of
government, that is already characterized by gross inefficiency.
The fifth question we have to ask is: Does this proposal have
clear measurable objectives, or are its goals vaguely stated and
therefore unmeasurable?
I desperately hope that the government will bring forward a
clear set of objectives when it tables its new legislation this fall.
Putting people back to work or restoring their dignity sounds
very nice, but unless we can clearly define our goals in
measurable terms and then monitor our progress in striving to
achieve them we may as well not even begin the process of
reform.
Clear goals will force us to determine beforehand whether or
not they are reasonable goals, whether or not they can even be
attained. Clear goals will give guidance to the means by which
we will achieve those goals. Clear goals will force us to set
budgets that will be sufficient to sustain these new programs in
boom and in bust periods. Without these goals we will be blindly
spending wheelbarrows full of money in the vain hope that
somehow this will improve things.
The sixth question we have to ask is: Has it been explained to
the public that if this decision leads to more government
spending then spending will have to be cut in other possibly
more essential areas or that taxes will have to be raised?
854
The government has a responsibility to communicate what is
going on in government. As servants of the people we are duty
bound to ask them where their priorities lie, which social
programs are the most important to them, second most
important, and so on. As the debt passes a half trillion dollars it
must be apparent by now that our resources must be carefully
rationed. I hope the government will fulfil its responsibility and
address this issue.
The seventh question I ask is: Is this decision being made with
complete awareness of the current economic, political, cultural,
historical and social situation and environment both within the
country and outside the country, or does it ignore current trends
and important facts?
While I touched on the economic situation, we must also be
aware of other factors that determine our environment. For
instance in the fast-paced world of free trade we have to decide
if it is even possible for government to predict successfully
where the jobs of the future will be. Can we determine if
technology will allow us to do more with less in the field of
health care? These are questions that can only be answered by
carefully investigating the delicate interplay of the many forces
that shape our country.
(1050)
The government is embarking on an ambitious plan.
Canadians from coast to coast recognize that our social
programs and health care are in desperate need of deep,
profound change. Not so obvious, however, is the subtle link
between strong social programs, a strong economy and the right
of Canadians, not politicians, not special interest groups, to
guide this modern day reformation movement.
Well intentioned politicians find it easy to spend other
people's money. Their good intentions are infinite but sadly the
money is not. Well intentioned special interest groups want to
help but have a powerful economic incentive to maintain the
status quo. Only real taxpayers, people who grind it out every
day to make a dollar, can make those tough decisions about how
their money should be spent. We should trust them to tell us
what is wrong with the social programs, what is wrong with
health care, which programs are most important to them, and
how they should be distributed and paid for.
I will conclude with these two lines that I believe sum up what
I have been attempting to say this morning. If we fake it, if we
only hear some people, if we only push our agenda, we cannot
succeed; but if we listen hard, if we communicate, if we take our
guidance from real taxpaying Canadians, we absolutely cannot
fail.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments made by the previous speaker.
I would like the member to elaborate a bit more, if he can, on
what he calls real taxpayers. If I am hearing him correctly he is
suggesting that if we just listened to real taxpayers we would be
more apt to make the right decisions. I would like to hear a more
explicit definition of a real taxpayer.
How do we take conflicting advice? I would suggest his
constituents are not unlike mine. I can assure the previous
speaker that I have, as he calls them, many ordinary taxpayers,
ordinary citizens and ordinary Canadians in my riding. They
disagree on how to move the country forward.
Constituents are not monolithic. They are not of one mind.
They are the macro of this institution. We are the micro. We
reflect the opinions and views of Canadians. We come here with
all the conflicting views and philosophies. We fight it out, most
of the time verbally, to get the job done.
Constituents are not much different. I can assure this new
member that he will be receiving conflicting advice from his
constituents every day that he sits in Parliament. He will be
receiving advice on taking a collective approach on certain
issues, sometimes the laissez-faire approach, sometimes the
government approach and sometimes the individual approach.
What I am leading to is that the member should try not to be so
simplistic in his approach or advice to this institution and other
Canadians. He should just listen to Canadians. Canadians are
divided. At the end of the day after we hear the conflicting views
and advice we have to make a judgment. That is what Burke was
saying 200 years ago. We are obliged to offer our constituents
our judgment.
We cannot be robots because the constituents are pressing
different buttons. They are pressing different buttons every day.
They are telling us to go this way and they are telling us to go
that way. Yet I hear the Reform Party say: ``No, our constituents
are of one mind. They are of one opinion. They are monolithic''.
That is baloney and I think they have to come to grips with that. I
want you to respond to that.
(1055)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind all members to
direct their questions and comments through the Chair.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the member raises some important
points. I would point out to him that it was not the people
involved in making the decisions who led us to the point where
we have a half trillion dollar debt today. They did not have direct
input into designing the programs that led us to that half trillion
dollar debt. Edmund Burke had some wise things to say, but he
did not have the opportunity to go through 300 or 400 years of
democracy to see where it would lead.
The member is making his comments, not in the context of the
current situation, not in the context of the fact that we have a
huge debt and deficit, not in the context of the fact that people
855
are cynical about politics and politicians, not in the context of
the fact that we have huge divisions in the country because
people do not feel they are being consulted.
If someone is simplistic in the House, it is not the people in
the Reform Party who believe people have to be given a voice. It
is people who believe they have all the answers. I encourage the
hon. member to take a look around the country today and
acknowledge we have to listen much more carefully to people
than we have over the last 20 years.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
too want to say a few words on this important motion put forth
by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
I want to say to my friend from Medicine Hat that he should
take a good look; he is looking at somebody who does not have
all the answers and does not pretend to have them. I do have
some concerns about this resolution and I shall express them.
If we look at the resolution, the guts of it say that the
committee would make recommendations regarding the
modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security
system. Since I have only 10 minutes I will not take any time to
talk about how proud I am to be in a country with such a good
social security system that has served the country very well for
many years. I wish I had time to do that but I do not. I do have the
time to say that I acknowledge any system however good needs
regular scrutiny, regular reviewing, to see what is good about it,
and we will hold to that. Whatever is not so good or has become
obsolete we will jettison; we will do away with. That is why our
system in Canada is a dynamic, unfolding, growing system.
There are a couple of buzzwords. I hate buzzwords; I just hate
them. I know I use them but I hate them because often
buzzwords wind up inadvertently skating over issues. The word
modernization and the word restructuring, maybe they were just
a bit of shorthand. Maybe they are buzzwords to mass a whole
set of intentions. That I want to know the answer to. Let me ask
people who hear the word rationalization: ``Have you ever heard
of a company that was going to rationalize the workforce that
wound up doubling the work force?'' Not quite. Rationalizing
has always come to connote wipe out, destroy, reduce to
nothing.
My good friend from North Vancouver injects the term
improve. Yes, I suppose there is a context in which by
rationalizing we can improve. I am not arguing that point. I am
saying to him that the term rationalization has so often come to
mean everything but improve. That is my point.
(1100 )
I come to the two buzzwords in this resolution: modernization
and restructuring. We have to be careful what exercise it is we
enable the committee to do. We must see to it that it has a full
mandate to scrutinize the present system and see ways in which,
in the words of my good friend from North Vancouver, the
system can be improved. I say to him improved, not gutted. To
gut the system is not to improve it. That is my whole point and he
helps me make it.
In the haste to modernize I have never had any excitement
about if it is modern it is therefore good. I happen to know some
good old fashioned things that are very good too. Modernization
does not get me too excited if in the process we jettison
something that was worth while. Restructuring for its own sake
does not get me very excited if, in the process, we restructure
some of the goodness, some of the inherent value of the
particular program.
I come from a province with a very proud and very long
history. By 1997 it will be 500 years since the Brits discovered
us, except those who were here before us were discovered a long
time before that. The Vikings discovered us around the year 900.
When they came here they found people in Newfoundland
already. The Dorset people were there about 2,500 years ago.
There has been settlement on the island of Newfoundland and
Labrador for thousands of years. The Caucasian settlement is
much more recent but it has been there for 500 years plus. When
the Brits arrived in 1497 they found the Portuguese already there
fishing quite regularly.
You know, Mr. Speaker, because you have heard me say many
times in the House that the reason people came to Newfoundland
was the same reason in effect that people went to the prairies of
western Canada. They came because there was a resource there
that they could earn a living from. In the one case, fish, and the
other case, land. That is why they came.
I introduce that in the context of this debate because there is
still a bit of stereotyping around. I had a professor in Boston
University many years ago, a very wise man. I will use his
words. They might not be politically correct these days but I
have to use his wording. He said: ``All Indians walk in single
file, at least the one I saw did''. There is always the danger of
generalizing from too few examples.
I have heard it. I am a proud Newfoundlander. I was born and
bred there. I spent all my life there and I hear about the lazy
Newfoundlander. I hear it all the time. We got used to the Newfie
jokes. They are intended for stunned mainlanders anyway so we
do not mind that. However we are stereotyped that we are all
down there trying to find a way to skin by, so we can get 10
856
stamps, so we can sit home and drink beer for the other 42
weeks. That is somehow contradicted by the reality.
Here is some of the reality. Today there are 580,000
Newfoundlanders living in Newfoundland. The reality is that
there are three-quarters of a million native born
Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland. Maybe some of
them went to Fort McMurray, to Cambridge, to Toronto-there
is a quarter of a million of them in southern Ontario alone-to
Los Angeles where there are 85,000, to what we call the Boston
states, the New England states where there are 75,000 native
born Newfoundlanders. Did they go because they found a way to
beat the system there and get 10 stamps?
No, they went to get a work opportunity. They have done it for
500 years. If the work is in the boat they stay there. If it is on the
rail tracks of Saskatchewan with CP that is where they go. If it is
cutting logs in Nova Scotia that is where they are today. If it is
working on the Great Lakes that is where they are today. Several
hundred of my constituents, even as I speak, are working the
Great Lakes.
I want to demolish one more time the myth that somehow
there are a bunch of lazy kooks down there who are waiting for a
government to come up with some more programs that they can
milk and stay home and drink beer. That is not what this exercise
is all about.
I am proud that I live in a country that says some people out
there, through no fault of their own, cannot look after
themselves and so we have a welfare system. I live in a country
where there is the reality that some people cannot get
employment for 12 months of the year and so we have an
unemployment insurance system. Does that mean we ought to
foster abuse of the unemployment insurance system? No, it does
not. It means something else. It means that in our haste to
modernize and to restructure we not throw out the baby with the
bath water.
(1105)
The basic system is good and has served us well. If there are
some abuses, let us find them. Let us not get so caught up in the
idea that now we have to reinvent the wheel. We have to find
some new things because it is 1994. Let us find some new ones if
they are better than the old ones but let us have a good look at the
old ones too. They have served us very well.
All this is a matter of perspective. I heard the exchange
between my good friend from Winnipeg-St. James and my
friend from Medicine Hat. It is not that one has all the answers.
Some of us state our views more vociferously than others. Some
of us do not believe them more deeply but maybe articulate them
more strongly at times.
We come from different perspectives. We come from different
solitudes. It is one thing if one is the leader of the Reform Party
and one's riding of Calgary Southwest has an average family
income of $49,000 or the newly independent gentleman from
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville who comes from a riding
that has the highest family income in Canada, $58,800.
One would have a different perspective if one represents those
ridings or if one represents my riding in which the average
family income is $24,800. The gentleman from Annapolis
Valley-Hants represents a riding in which the average family
income is $30,000.
It is a matter of what the reality and background are and who
sent us here. I have to say to my colleagues in this Chamber that
the people who sent me here are every bit as Canadian as the
people who live in my good friend's riding of Gaspé or my other
friend's riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata. They are every bit
as Canadian but with very different perspectives than somebody
who lives on the prairies of Canada or elsewhere in this country.
That is what this debate is all about. We do not run a
government here. We do not sit here and look at the gorgeous
stained windows, as nice as they are. We debate here. This is a
forum in which we bring the ideas of Canadians in two
territories and ten provinces together. There is going to be a
debate of different ideas. We are going to have differences of
opinion. However, at the end of the day we are worth our salt,
our salary.
We justify our being here only if we take what we had in the
past in terms of social security systems and not destroy them or
with euphemisms of restructuring throw them out. We should
rebuild them. We should craft a better vehicle for the 1990s.
That is the challenge that my people in Burin-St. George's
want me to address. I believe it is the one that all people across
this country want us to address here.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently to the speech given by the hon. member. I enjoyed it
very much, although for a while I wondered if he was talking
about buzzwords and Newfie jokes more than the problem at
hand.
However, he did mention at one stage rationalization being a
bad word that meant terrible things. He gave me credit for
bringing in the term improvement.
Companies that have had to go through a rationalization
program have ended up with a better structure, more efficiency
and a profitable situation from perhaps one that would have
meant disaster before.
He also mentioned the term reality. I wanted to bring some
reality to the discussion here and ask him a specific question. A
person who retired on CPP in the early 1980s will collect almost
five times what they contributed to CPP in their lifetime.
However, a 20-year-old today contributing to CPP will end
up collecting less than three-quarters of what that person
contributed. A similar problem exists with UI when a person
857
using the system can collect up to 17 times as much as they pay
into the system.
Does the hon. member agree that the CPP and UI systems
should be modernized or rationalized so that they are much more
like true insurance rather than a system of transferring benefits
from one person to another?
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend from North Vancouver
makes two excellent points.
(1110 )
The best way I can respond to the first point is to tell the hon.
member about the three people who were facing execution by
the guillotine. The rule was that if there were something wrong
with the guillotine you went scot free. The first person put his
head down, the blade jammed half way down and he was let go.
The second person, the same thing. The third person was
watching this and always wanting to be helpful he said to the
executioner, ``I think I know how to fix that''.
If efficiency is the only objective, I can make the system very
efficient for the hon. member for North Vancouver. Efficiency is
not an end in itself. It must never become an end in itself in
government. It must become one of the vehicles by which we get
there.
If the only objective is efficiency I can tell him how to make
unemployment efficient. Do not send out any cheques. All right?
Just give people food stamps maybe. I can tell him how to make
CPP efficient. Let us call it off. That would be the ultimate in
efficiency, would it not?
Let us go to his second point of whether the examples he cites
need fixing? I say to him gently we are having a debate. It was
moved by the Minister of Human Resources Development,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and the debate is calling on
us to look at the social programs and see if they can be improved.
That is to say, that debate itself, the fact that the gentleman rose
in his place and moved a motion, is an acknowledgement that
there is a lot wrong with the system. The hon. member for North
Vancouver has given us two examples. If I had a week I could
give him 10,000 others.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on the
modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security
system.
In particular, I am pleased that the Minister of Human
Resources Development has proposed to consult as broadly as
possible with the Canadian people by directing the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development to listen to
Canadian concerns and priorities regarding all aspects of the
social safety net.
This grassroots approach is precisely what Canadians have
been demanding for many years. During the last election
Canadians told us that social assistance programs and
unemployment insurance are not leading them back to the work
force.
Canadians are right to be concerned. We risk becoming
polarized into two camps, those who have jobs and those who do
not. Too many people are not working. Too many people want
jobs and cannot find them.
Part of our social safety net is comprised of social assistance
or welfare administered by the provinces. Social assistance has
been designed to help those whose lives have a taken an
unexpected turn for the worst. It helps the disadvantaged and the
disabled. It ensures that people have the basics of life, food,
shelter and health care. In some cases social assistance also
provides training programs to prepare clients for jobs and
independence. Through this process a new idea has emerged.
Social assistance that provides the basics of life is no longer
enough. Social assistance also needs to be geared to making
people more confident, self-reliant and ready to re-enter the
work force.
It is true that welfare is a provincial jurisdiction but the
federal government must not and cannot shirk its responsibility.
The federal government is an important part of the social safety
net. We have the responsibility of the unemployment insurance
fund which distributes up to $20 billion annually and the same
problem that besets social assistance also affects
unemployment. It does not lead people back to the work force.
For too many people unemployment insurance is just a stop
along the way to welfare.
Besides unemployment the federal government has programs
that assist the elderly, veterans, disabled and aboriginals. We
also provide transfer payments to the provinces to help support
health, education and social assistance programs. These direct
and indirect expenditures represent the single largest
component of federal spending. It is in the amount of $70
billion, slightly over half of all our federal program spending.
High taxes and huge debt are crushing Canada's economy. On
the other hand social assistance programs that generate a
continuous cycle of dependency are crushing the lives of
millions of Canadians. We simply cannot afford either
financially or morally to continue this cycle.
The Canadian people know that our social programs, both
federal and provincial, are strained to the limit. Many feel they
no longer do what they have been designed to do.
(1115 )
Instead we need a brand new model so that we would better
meet the needs of the Canadian people. This new model for our
social safety net will require changes along the way at a number
of levels, from the fiscal arrangements which help to pay for
these programs to the ways these programs themselves are
delivered.
858
For 127 years Canadians have enjoyed a system of
government that has served us well, two tiers of jurisdiction,
federal and provincial, divide powers and responsibilities.
What makes Canada great is that we have always been able to
work together and compromise for the greater good.
At this juncture of our history we once again find ourselves in
need of that co-operation and goodwill. Now is not the time for
another protracted turf war between the federal and provincial
governments. Canadians will not accept it, nor should we as
federal representatives be drawn into jurisdictional squabbles.
What the times appear to demand now is a new rationale for the
social security system and a willingness to co-operate in
implementing this rationale.
I am pleased to note that a number of provinces have taken the
lead in exploring new ideas and trying new programs. They are
to be commended for their initiative and for their creativity. For
example, British Columbia and New Brunswick are
experimenting with pilot projects that use financial incentives
to get those on welfare back to school or back into the work
force.
Ontario is proposing a three tiered approach: a child benefit
for all parents on low income, a basic benefit for jobless adults,
and a special allowance up to $450 a month for jobless adults in
retraining programs.
Newfoundland has proposed replacing unemployment
insurance and welfare with a form of guaranteed annual income
of at least $9,000 for everyone in the province. The needy and
the destitute would receive other monetary housing and health
benefits. As for those who receive welfare or unemployment
insurance they would no longer be penalized if they take part
time, short term or minimum wage jobs. They would no longer
lose their housing, health and child care benefits until they could
afford to pay for them.
All these examples illustrate a workable common sense
approach to the change of Canada's social safety net. By
combining the principles of need and merit with incentive, these
examples of welfare reform illustrate that social programs can
be based on a kind of hard nosed compassion.
The question is familiar to anyone living in Canada. How with
limited funds can we support in some dignity those who cannot
work, reward those who can for trying and either educate or train
the rest? We already have some interesting examples before us.
Enterprising welfare reforms have been heard before and then
forgotten.
I do not believe Canadians can afford to let that happen again.
That is why I am so pleased that the Minister of Human
Resources Development has already agreed to study several of
these proposals made by some of the provinces.
The changes when they come might happen in the following
way. Assuming that the Canadian economy must undergo
pronounced structural change to remain competitive the labour
force is naturally faced with job retraining, job dislocation and
economic uncertainty. A significant job category in the near
future may well be that of trainee or student.
Unemployment insurance seems to be the likely candidate to
be transformed into a training and upgrading allowance scheme.
Such allowances could even begin with students completing
high school and beginning occupational training or higher
education. These allowances would continue to be available to
people in the process of retraining when that becomes necessary.
The possibility even exists of entirely banishing the concept
of unemployment. Temporary lay-offs could be used as holiday
time while more lengthy lay-offs could be used for sabbatical or
for periods of job retraining.
As illustrated by the Newfoundland scheme such allowances
might also be used to supplement the incomes of those in part
time employment. The beauty of this vibrant as opposed to
passive form of guaranteed annual income is that when someone
on social assistance finally finds a job they will not be punished
with a smaller cheque. They would be given a bigger one. The
assistance would taper off until earned income reaches a certain
level, and then slowly subside to zero until another level is
reached.
The advantages are easy to see. Unemployment insurance and
make work spending are redeployed to support the
unemployable and also reward the effort of getting work.
Conventional, passive welfare spending declines as people find
jobs or create their own through self-employment and enough is
left over to finance better training programs and education.
The provinces have come up with many new approaches. It is
this government's desire to work with the provinces with one
simple goal in mind, getting Canada back to work. We want to sit
down with our provincial partners and come up with a unified
and effective program that works for the Canadian people. By
co-operating I believe we can find new solutions. I believe our
shared deficit and debt crisis has opened a window of
opportunity to try new common sense ideas. They have forced us
to recognize that our first task is to get Canadians working
again. They have forced us to recognize that what we do now is
not working.
(1120)
The federal government and the provinces of this federation
have been given a unique opportunity. Together we can perform
a fundamental overhaul of all the social assistance and
unemployment insurance programs. Let us not waste this rare
opportunity. Let us tap into that reservoir of Canadian ingenuity
and
859
good old-fashioned common sense and work together for the
good of all Canadians.
At this time I would like to apologize to my hon. colleague for
using the buzzwords.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I must
congratulate the member who just finished her speech. I
certainly share some of her concerns and I also understand why
many Canadians want democratic debates like the one we are
having right now. But Canadians also expect us to take
immediate and concrete measures.
Up to now, this government has made no major decision.
Nothing has been done to tackle great priorities like the deficit
or the social security system reform. We must remember that
during the campaign, the Liberals promised they would
maintain the status quo in that area, particularly in the case of
welfare.
I would like to know if the member thinks job creation might
be a good way to begin the reform. The government announced
an infrastructure program to put people back to work, but we
will need more than that. What is the government waiting for to
launch job creation projects which would at the same time lead
to this reform?
It is clear the announced reform was only an excuse to cut
social programs because the government is unable to create
jobs. We cannot train welfare recipients if that training does not
lead to enriching, creative and well paid jobs. Otherwise, as
someone said before, we get into a vicious circle and go back to
square one.
The number of people living below the poverty line keeps on
increasing. We must therefore, first and foremost, focus our
efforts on job creation. As her government said: jobs, jobs, jobs,
I say jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, but with concrete projects, and reform
will follow. I would like to have her comments on this.
[English]
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for his kind remarks.
As to the social programs and the funding, I believe
throughout our campaign we illustrated the fact that jobs and the
social security programs together are unified. If we get people
back to work the social programs will be less in use. The moneys
will be there and in close ties with that, the financial end of the
social programs will help alleviate the debt and the deficit.
(1125 )
We have to be patient. We have been here for a few months,
but I can assure the hon. member that the human resources
minister is certainly working hard to come up with a strong
effective program to meet the challenges of today. I am sure it
will be something that will meet well with all Canadians.
The Liberals have been known to be caring and compassionate
people. I am sure the hon. member's concerns will be addressed
by the ministers involved. I again thank the member for the kind
comments.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I do
congratulate the hon. member for her address. She brought a lot
of passion and eloquence to her delivery today.
I am just a little bit confused in my own mind and would like
some clarification with respect to the statements from the
member for Burin-St. George's. He said that we have had a
basic system that has served us well. If that is the case, why then
did the hon. member who just spoke say that the economy has to
undergo major restructuring?
I would like the hon. member to somehow bring together
those two statements so that when it comes to a question of
integration and getting a system working again that this does
indeed happen. The two members have created some confusion
for me. Could the hon. member please clarify those statements?
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind
remarks.
I believe the programs were established and well studied at
the time they were implemented. As time goes on, functions for
a program change. When times are hard and jobs are lost, some
of the programs tend to be referred to in a manner that did not
need to be addressed when times were a little more affluent. This
is what we are trying to address. The programs have been
studied but we have to make sure that the abuse of the programs
is addressed. When the economy is down it appears the abuses
seem to go up. If we can balance both of them, our programs will
satisfy both at the same time. I hope I have answered the hon.
member's question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving the floor to
the hon. member for Québec, I would like her to indicate
whether she is going to make a 10 or a 20 minute speech.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Twenty minutes, Mr.
Speaker.
The riding of Quebec, which I have the honour to represent in
the House of Commons, is a very special one.
Many MPs say the same thing about their riding, but this one,
which is home to the Quebec government and the National
Assembly, as well as the Old City of Quebec, declared a world
heritage site by UNESCO, is, for all Quebecers, a sacred place
steeped in history, from an administrative, political and
emotional perspective.
860
I want above all to pay tribute to the people of my riding,
and state again that I am convinced that the direction taken by
the Bloc Quebecois is the only one which will lead Quebec to
full economic development and nationhood. To convince
everyone in my constituency of that fact will be the greatest
challenge of my mandate.
The riding includes several federal sites such as the famous
Plains of Abraham, Artillery Park and the Citadel, well known
to tourists and visitors alike. It also includes a harbour vital to
our region's economy, but which has been experiencing a
significant drop in activity in the wake of the general slowdown
of the economy.
I promise to raise again, in this House, the problems plaguing
the Quebec harbour to show how a harbour, centrally managed
by Ottawa which keeps all the revenues, and whose development
is controlled from afar, cannot compete against harbours
elsewhere in the world which are virtually all managed locally,
such as those of Rotterdam and Antwerp.
Next to the commercial harbour, we find the Old Port, an
important tourist attraction and recreational facility in which
the federal government has been investing considerable sums
for more than a decade. The development and vocation of this
facility create serious planning problems in our area.
(1130)
The fact the local and regional elected officials do not have
formal jurisdiction over these facilities calls into question once
again the whole issue of the inefficient and bureaucratic
centralization of Canadian federalism, as we have experienced it
in Quebec City.
I am sure we will have ample opportunity to re-examine this
issue in the coming months and to call upon the Liberal
government to allocate the sums promised during the election
campaign, but bearing in mind the real needs identified by local
stakeholders.
Aside from these major infrastructures, the constituency of
Québec has a number of features that are not so well known to
tourists and visitors. The riding takes in the most densely
populated area in the region and as such, it is grappling with
extensive social problems and with poverty.
Large portions of Lower Town and one neighbourhood in
Upper Town present all of the symptoms of social and economic
decline, namely widespread unemployment, tenuous jobs,
dependence on social assistance and a host of other human
problems.
Successive census figures show that the population of these
neighbourhoods is decreasing. The average income of Lower
Town residents in 1986 was $6,000 less than that of residents in
the entire Quebec City area and in the entire province. The
census also showed that in Quebec City in 1986, there was a
difference of $7,000 in the average incomes of women and men.
The poorer neighbourhoods in Quebec City and elsewhere are
feeling the full effects of erratic and shortsighted government
policies, against a backdrop of spiralling taxes, complete
tolerance of smuggling activities and the ongoing shameless
waste of public funds, as evidenced by the annual denunciations
of the Auditor General.
For members of the public forced to put up with service cuts
and higher taxes, the price-quality ratio, as they say in
economic circles, is slipping more and more.
As I stated earlier, the women who live in some of the
neighbourhoods in my riding, like women in other
constituencies, experience a unique situation, one that puts them
at a disadvantage. Now is the time to take a closer look at the
broader issue of the status of women and to ask whether this is a
priority for the government.
This is the question that must be asked by women in Quebec
and in Canada, given the threat of cuts to social programs. For a
great many women, these social programs are the only safety net
they have and the only way for them to make ends meet.
A number of studies have brought to light the abject poverty
in which women live every day. According to a study conducted
by Health and Welfare Canada, in 1987, 63.6 per cent of
single-parent families with preschoolers lived below the
poverty line set by Statistics Canada. These figures alone
illustrate the problems faced by many single mothers who
account for 10.7 per cent of Canadian families and for 11.7 per
cent of Quebec families.
These are not just figures and statistics. We are talking about
our sisters, our friends and our mothers.
Even though poverty is not the sole cause of violence, a
number of studies have shown a correlation between poverty and
violence against women and children. My hon. colleagues in the
Official Opposition will agree, as will the other hon. members of
this House, that job creation-by this I mean real, sustainable,
well paid jobs that contribute to the personal growth of
workers-must be at the top of the government's list of
priorities. A partnership must be forged with Quebec and the
other provinces as well as with the private sector.
Poverty and health problems go hand in hand. The more a
family has to spend on housing, the less money it has for food,
clothing and medicine. Statistics Canada reports that 57 per cent
of single-parent families headed by women live in rental
housing, whereas the same is true of only 37 per cent of men in
the same situation. These figures cast poverty and housing
problems in a decidedly feminine light.
Poverty also means a lack of money for child care. One has
often heard women earning the minimum wage lament the fact
that it costs them more to work and pay child care than if they
were to stay at home and collect social assistance or
unemployment insurance. This is not laziness but a recognition
of the
861
system's inability to provide child care services allowing
women to join the workforce, to ensure their personal growth,
to upgrade their professional qualifications, in order to achieve
financial independence and break the chains of dependency.
(1135)
Mothers who want to work or go back to school or, as the
studies show, the large number of them who have no choice but
to work outside the home, urgently need government support.
They will then be able to go to work secure in the knowledge that
their children are in good hands.
It is difficult if not impossible in this debate to deal with all
issues concerning women. We will limit ourselves to two
aspects for now: child care and violence against women.
Let us look first at the issue of child care. The former
Conservative government had promised Quebecers and
Canadians a national child care program that was supposed to
create 400,000 new child care spaces. This project was
abandoned in February 1992. According to a report by the
Conseil de la famille du Québec, tabled in May 1993, the
Quebec government reduced by $94 million the money it was
supposed to invest in child care in the last three years.
We also know that in 1988, according to the Canadian national
child care study, more than 1,634,000 Canadian families needed
child care services. In Quebec, 385,900 families would need
such services for their pre-school and school age children.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised
to create 50,000 child care spaces in each year following a year
of 3 per cent economic growth, up to a total of 150,000 spaces.
Forty per cent of the costs would be paid by the federal
government, another 40 per cent by the provinces, and the
remaining 20 per cent by parents according to a sliding scale
based on income. We find this economic growth-related
restriction puzzling.
There is a crying need for child care spaces. According to
assessments by the Office de garde du Québec, these needs
amounted to 201,310 spaces in 1988 compared with 130,713
available spaces, leaving a gap of over 70,000 spaces.
The federal government has always trodden very carefully on
this issue. It makes promises and then backs off. Some women's
organizations and child care associations want a national child
care program. The Bloc Quebecois will not oppose the creation
of a national child care program.
We recognize that some provinces, because of their organic
bond with federal institutions, may want a federally
administered and regulated program.
However, as far as Quebec is concerned, we are firmly against
the federal government imposing on Quebec families a
Canada-wide program with its own list of standards without
concern for our needs or our economic, cultural and social
situation.
Our intention in this regard is clear. We are asking the federal
government to transfer to the Quebec government its fair share
of subsidies so that it can develop adequate child care services
taking into account the welfare of children and the needs of
parents. To us, the transfer to Quebec of all federal social and
health program budgets is paramount.
Many hon. members and ministers have stated that the
government cannot put its fiscal house in order without cutting
social programs since transfers to individuals and provinces
account for over half of program spending.
In our opinion, if the government intends to reassess, review,
streamline, redesign or, in other words, cut social programs by
dumping the deficit problem on Quebec and the other provinces,
it is totally unacceptable.
Before thinking of cutting social programs, the government
would be well advised to cut defence spending, to save $1 billion
in administrative costs, by giving the provinces sole jurisdiction
in employment matters.
We think that setting up a parliamentary committee to review
spending in order to eliminate waste and duplication and reduce
operating costs would be the best way to identify areas where
there is still fat to be trimmed. We believe that the federal
government must rationalize its own spending before reducing
payments to those hit hardest by the serious economic problems.
(1140)
The Canada assistance plan is the program through which the
federal government contributes 50 per cent of the social
assistance provided by the provinces. This means that 50 per
cent of what it costs Quebec to provide day care spaces, as well
as tax exemptions and financial assistance for non-profit child
care comes from this program.
This program emphasizes the inefficiency of the cost-sharing
formula which lacks incentives to improve financial
management practices. Also, the rule of spending favours the
have provinces. Because they have more tax resources to spend,
they receive more federal funding.
In the end, albeit in the short term, we believe that there is an
urgent need to relax the eligibility requirements for tax
exemptions and financial assistance to help low and
middle-income families pay for child care services without
having to cut back week after week on basic necessities.
862
Now, we move on to the subject of violence against women in
Quebec and in Canada. It has become such a widespread
phenomenon that, even if it may sound redundant to quote more
statistics, we feel the need to do so because the numbers speak
for themselves.
Half of all women in Canada have been victims of at least one
act of violence since the age of 16. Some 25 per cent of all
women in Canada have been abused by their present or previous
partner. Six Canadian women out of ten who walk alone at night
in their neighbourhoods have reported that they were either very
or slightly afraid to do so.
These few figures from Statistics Canada surveys on violence
against women published in November 1993 draw an
increasingly alarming picture of the situation faced by women in
Quebec and Canada.
Clearly, violence has become a serious problem. Over the last
decade, 600 children were killed in Canada. One third of these
children were under one and 70 per cent were under five.
From now on, family violence against women must be viewed
in a broader context so as to include spouse abuse. Thanks to the
tireless efforts of women's organizations such as rape crisis
centres and other shelters, incest is no longer a subject discussed
only behind closed doors. We think that the lack of financial
support for these organizations is most unfortunate because it
jeopardizes not only their very existence but also the delivery of
first-line services to women whose lives, in many cases, are in
constant danger.
We also want to emphasize the needs of women from cultural
communities, particularly newcomers, women with disabilities
and seniors who are abused. Some women, often because of their
greater vulnerability, urgently need support to break the code of
silence that makes their situation so tragic.
While we notice a certain shift in the attitudes and behaviour
of our legal system towards victims of violence, recent events
indicate that other challenges need to be met.
In closing, I think that the need to alleviate the hardship of
families and individuals in Quebec and Canada must be seen as
an underlying principle in any review of social programs.
To this end, it is imperative that the government curb the
deficit and cut extravagant expenditures without social
programs being affected. In fact, social programs are the only
social security net we have as we face a sluggish economy that
has shrunk as a result of the irresponsible management of
federal funds and costly duplication.
It is obvious that the government has not met the changing
needs of our society, in particular with regard to child care. On
behalf of all women, we ask that the condition put on investing
in a child care program, which is dependent upon a yearly three
per cent economic growth, be lifted. The government must
release funds immediately and there should not be any
constraints put on provinces that would rather set up their own
program.
To meet the needs of women, we must develop a joint strategy
of adequate child care, decent and affordable housing, abuse
control, job training and permanent employment. Women have
been waiting for a very long time.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
we have heard comments from the hon. member with respect to
increasing spending on day care. One certainly cannot argue
with that. As well we have heard discussions about not cutting
social programs.
(1145 )
At the end of her presentation the hon. member indicated that
the deficit should be cut, after talking about increasing
spending, not decreasing spending.
My question for the hon. member is this. How does she
believe that can be fulfilled, the cutting of the deficit without
cutting spending, not expanding spending in other areas?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I talked about cutting the fat, but
I also talked about increasing child care services to solve the
problems that women go through every day when they want to
go to work so that they can have some personal independence. I
believe that the society which we represent here in this House
urgently needs to think about child care services so that some
women could be self-supporting. I am talking about cuts in
government overspending. I think that women have waited long
enough. Such cuts would really show the government's resolve
to act quickly.
They talk about 3 per cent economic growth before they can
invest in child care services; this may mean putting it off
indefinitely or at least until much later. Women have waited
long enough and I think that this year we should do something
for them.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Quebec for the fine speech she made.
However I found some inconsistencies in it.
She stated it is completely unacceptable for the Canadian
government to offload programs on to the provinces. At the
863
same time she said the day care situation in Quebec will not be
resolved unless the province of Quebec is left to do it on its own.
I always wonder when I hear these types of statements where
the money is magically going to come from. There seems to be
some magical formula that is going to generate some money to
pay for these programs if one level of government gets out of the
act.
We heard it the other day when the member for Lévis was
talking about job creation: if the federal government got out of it
there would be money to create all kinds of jobs.
We heard it from the member for Gaspé. He said if the federal
government got out of regulating the fish stocks there would be
all kinds of fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to provide a
livelihood for the fishermen there.
My question for the hon. member for Quebec is this. How
does she see the money being available to provide for the
problems she has identified? Quebec is one of the provinces that
receives money from the federal government under the
equalization grants. By the federal government removing itself,
how on earth is that going to create the money to resolve the
problems she has identified?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is
asking for the transfers to be returned to Quebec so that it can
manage its own child care programs. We give $28 billion to the
federal government; this is our taxpayers' money. I think that it
is better to have only one level of government managing. We
must decentralize decision making. Child care services must be
specific to the needs of each province.
For the Government of Quebec, as with occupational training,
it is the same situation dragging on. Quebec wants to run its own
child care programs so that it can set its own standards. That is
what we demand. So Quebec wants its fair share of the $28
billion it gives to the federal government. That is only one of the
issues.
With regard to social housing, we know very well that Quebec
is disadvantaged compared to Ontario, in terms of the fair share
it should receive. I was looking at figures on social housing; we
know that women are greatly affected by this program. In my
riding, we have more than 4,900 single mothers and 4,300 of
them are waiting for social housing.
(1150 )
I have a letter from the president of CMHC, saying that
construction of social housing has resumed but that Quebec is
behind in this new start-up of social housing. If we go through it
issue by issue I think it is a good reflection of the Quebec reality.
We have come here to talk about this reality; it is part of my
mandate to explain in this House the realities that people in my
riding live with. Child care services and social housing are two
issues that I care very much about.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I realize that there
will be some rather interesting debates in this House. The
comments made by the members representing Quebec are
sometimes understood, and sometimes not so well understood.
However, I must say that this morning I was touched by the
speech of my colleague representing the riding of Québec,
because I think it is the first time that we hear a member who
knows what she is talking about. My colleague represents
Quebecers as well as the women of Canada and Quebec, and she
reminded this House of the numerous electoral promises which
were made.
Earlier, we pointed out that when members from Quebec rise
in this House, some think that every issue affecting Quebec can
be solved. We invite those people to come to see us and listen to
us. When the hon. member for Québec said that we must invest
instead of talking about spending-because sometimes we talk
about spending even though it is not the case- when she
mentions investing in daycare facilities, she means that the
government must invest in Quebec and Canadian families. In
that regard, I urge the members in this House to reread Hansard
in order to better understand the messages sent, since the
language barrier seems to prevent us from being well
understood.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to create a sense of
awareness. Very little is said about the situation of women. It is
always a somewhat sensitive issue and I wanted to make
members from both sides of the House aware of the claims made
by women, and also convince them to be very receptive to those
claims. I know that we are going through a period of austerity
which affects all of Canada, including Quebec, but let us not
forget that women have been waiting for a long time. There are
many working women, but they need concrete support from the
governments.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
we have heard many fine suggestions from all sides of the House
during this debate and I would like, if I may, to approach the
matter from a slightly different angle.
We have been told many times and it has been expressed in
many different ways that now is the hour of revision. We must
examine the old ways and find new ones if we are to live within
our means and still provide for the needy in society. We can
never abandon those who need help. We must reduce our
spending while preserving those social programs that have made
Canada the envy of the world.
I do not believe we have to slash and burn. I believe we can
retain the essentials right across the board if we define a new
understanding between government and many of the special
interest organizations that receive public funds. If those who can
864
take less were to do so there would be more for government to
give where the need is greatest.
I have the opportunity to examine the published public
accounts between 1991 and 1993. I have been singularly
impressed by the way in which previous governments have
financially supported all manner of worthy organizations,
especially those specifically constituted to promoting specific
causes such as organizations to preserve French outside Quebec,
organizations to preserve English in Quebec, to further labour
education, to raise the profile of women, to argue the dangers of
smoking, to advance the cause of day care, to preserve minority
cultures. The list is long for the worthy causes are many.
The difficulty is that most of these organizations rely on the
federal government for funding, $50,000 here, $20,000 there,
$30,000 here, $40,000 there. The money spent viewed across
many ministries runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
(1155)
Let me give some examples. Understand that in doing so, I do
not mean to disparage the organizations mentioned. All have
valid messages. All have enormous commitment. All have
hundreds, thousands, even millions of supporters.
Last year the Canadian Labour Congress received $4 million
to further labour education. Other labour union groups received
an additional $3 million for the same purpose. Meanwhile, to be
entirely fair, the national headquarters of the Chamber of
Commerce received $1.6 million. In every instance it is a lot of
money. The point is the CLC, the other unions and the Chamber
of Commerce have large paying memberships which believe in
what these organizations stand for. It cannot but strike one as
odd that the taxpayer is also supporting them.
The National Action Committee for the Status of Women also
has incredible support, millions of supporters. It receives
$300,000 in federal money with another $700,000 going to
regional and provincial affiliates. This too is a lot of money. By
way of contrast, the Girl Guides of Canada received $15,000,
one of the lowest awards of hundreds.
Another example is the Smoking and Health Action
Foundation, one of the most prominent anti-smoking lobbies in
Canada, received $415,000 in federal and provincial grants. It
received nothing from members. It did, however, pay $400,821
in salary and benefits to its eight full-time staff members. It is a
generous employer.
My question is if an organization has broad grass roots
support why does it not rely on that support financially? Why
does it not appeal to the people who share its ideals to give a
dime or a dollar?
The girl guides sell cookies, churches pass plates, political
parties have fund raising barbecues and dinners. It would be a
scandal for sure if the hon. members of the Bloc required federal
money to finance their agenda of separatism. Are they any less
idealistic, less motivated than the many other advocacy and
special interest organizations that now receive public money?
There are hundreds of organizations, large and small, taking
from the taxpayer when they could be, possibly they should be,
raising all the money they need by themselves. My challenge to
these organizations is turn your back on government funding.
Prove to Canadians that your issues are so strong, so vital that
like-minded people will get behind all your programs and they
will spare that dime, they will spare that dollar.
The reality of today is government's cannot afford to finance
organizations that should be able to finance themselves. We
must spend on those individuals who are most in need, those
who do not fall into some convenient catch word, those who are
without strong voices and yet who are crying for help, the poor
or the young, the tens of thousands under the age of 25 who are
without jobs and with no prospects. We need to save money to
save them.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I was surprised by some aspects of the hon. member's
speech. For instance, he used the word separatist instead of
using the term sovereigntist. I suppose he is unaware of the fact
that in international law and political science, the term
sovereigntist should be used. There is no such thing as a
separatist doctrine in international law, but that is not my main
objection, and I imagine he can always read up on the subject.
What surprised me most was that he challenged the Bloc's
eligibility for funding on the same basis as other political
parties.
(1200)
The hon. member should realize that Quebecers pay taxes like
anyone else. This is what more experienced colleagues in the
hon. member's own party realized when they decided the Bloc
was entitled to have Parliament pay their legal fees in the
lawsuit brought against them by a Mr. Aaron. The hon.
member's colleagues are apparently more democratic in outlook
than he seems to be.
Finally, the hon. member may or may not know that the
Quebec Elections Act says that only individuals may finance
political parties. Now that is democratic legislation and it is a
legacy of a sovereigntist party in Quebec. And I would ask the
hon. member whether, for the sake of the image of politicians
and so people will realize that integrity does exist in politics, it
would not be better for Parliament to pass legislation providing
for grassroots financing of political parties instead of
fund-raising dinners at $1,000 a plate at the Laurier Club, a
Liberal club,
865
or taking donations from the wealthy who often have access to
family trusts which his government is reluctant to tax. I would
appreciate the hon. member's thoughts on the matter.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I guess my speech was not as good
as I thought. Obviously a point has been missed here.
I did not mean to suggest there is something wrong with the
method of Bloc fund raising. I meant to suggest that all political
parties should receive support from the people, from their
constituents, not from government. We would have a very
incestuous relationship if the Liberal government were to be
financing the Bloc at this time or the Parti Quebecois.
I must add further that the choice of the word separatism as
opposed to sovereignty was a deliberate choice on my part. I
actually did consider that very carefully because I am aware of
the distinction and the distinction in the eyes of the Bloc, but I
have to say that most Canadians they see the separatism rather
than sovereignty. I am sorry.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech. There
are many things in his speech that I certainly subscribe to and
many Reformers do as well.
There are a lot of organizations in this country receiving
grants well in excess of what they should be. Perhaps by
listening to such a speech there is a lot of room for reconciliation
among parties in today's Parliament in trying to curb this kind of
thing and spend money in the right places. Perhaps in the next
four years we shall see, maybe the House of Commons will be
very much together on that issue.
I would like to ask the hon. member how he would define
slash and burn of social programs since it was mentioned once if
not twice in his speech.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer that very
simply. Slash and burn is when the cutting of social programs
leads only with the mind, only with head, and forgets the heart.
We must remember the heart.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member said in his speech that people should live within their
means. Does that mean people who have little or no resources do
not have the right to live? To hear some members of this House,
you would think there were no poor people in Canada. I think we
should not introduce reforms at the expense of the neediest in
this country, and I would ask the hon. member to give us his
views on the subject.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are beginning the
reform on the backs of the disadvantaged. The direction of my
speech was to ask that those who are able to take care of
themselves should look after themselves and raise their own
money. I think that applies right across the board. Those who are
not in need need not be helped but we have to help those who are
in need.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased that we are able to have this type of a debate on such a
major item as social policy reform in Canada. It is time we sat
down and recognized where we have come from and the
evolution of social policy in this country.
(1205)
Most of the social programs and policies we have today which
make us distinctly different from almost every country in the
world have come about because of Liberal policies. In the past,
Liberals, as a government and a country that is liberal, we
believed in the collective ownership of the resource that is
Canada. We believed fundamentally that it did not matter where
we lived, in Alberta, northern Ontario, Newfoundland or in
Ottawa, somehow we had a right to expect to share in the
greatness and the wealth that is Canada.
We have developed a lot differently than our counterparts to
the south. We believe in a free market system but we also believe
that the state has a responsibility to redistribute wealth. We
believe in a free market society but there are larger overriding
priorities of our society than the accumulation of personal
wealth. It is why we are different. It is why we have developed
differently. We manifest our beliefs in social programs that
make us the envy of the world.
We believe that nobody should have to live in poverty in a
country as rich, as prosperous, with the future that Canada has.
We believe as a nation that those individuals who are elected to
govern should be able to find a policy mechanism to ensure that
nobody should have to worry about whether they have food on
their tables when they retire, when they are old and in their
twilight years.
We believe we can come up with programs to deliver these
policies to ensure that no matter where we live we have a right to
expect quality health care that was accessible to everybody free
of charge.
The federal government put in policies which by and large
worked very well. Those policies ensured that in time of
economic collapse or dislocation nobody starved to death. It
made sure that we somehow allowed the free market system to
work but at the same time discharged its collective social
responsibility.
Times have changed. We find ourselves in a situation where
government is no longer able to deliver these principles in the
same way. Some people, such as my colleagues in the Reform
866
Party, might say the principles are no longer valid. I would
disagree with them strongly. What may no longer be valid are
the delivery mechanisms that have been put in place. They may
not be delivering the programs as efficiently as we might like. In
fact, to argue that the vehicles must be maintained may
jeopardize the principles and the programs.
This is not just a Liberal philosophy. It is, I believe, a
fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. It is part of the
fabric of this country. Who better to redesign the social safety
network than the party that put it together in the first place, the
Liberal Party. Who better at this point in our history to reach out
and start it here than this new Liberal government.
We have sought input and debate from all sides of the House.
However there are certain things we have to remember in the
debate. It is very easy if we are just looking at the fiscal concerns
of the state. It is very easy to get rid of the deficit. I listened to
my Reform colleagues opposite during the campaign and they
presented through their leader and their candidates a way to get
rid of the deficit in three years. I could get rid of the deficit in 12
months, but it would be a vastly different Canada.
It would mean that the poor and the disenfranchised would be
living in parks like they do in the United States. I am sorry but
that is not the type of Canada I was born in and that is not the
type of Canada I am going to work toward. It means that
transfers to the poorest provinces would be cut, such as to Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. We can say: ``Well,
we have done our bit as federal legislators. We have done our bit
to reduce the deficit''. However, the human carnage that would
remain after those actions would be unconscionable and
unacceptable. So we are not going to follow the Reform pattern
of slash and burn on social programs.
As a government we want to have a full debate about what
principles of social justice we believe are still applicable and
whether we can develop the vehicles to deliver that social justice
through programming.
(1210 )
We have to remember a number of things. One is that even in
the wealthiest country in the world, and the country that the UN
says is the best country in the world to live in, in spite of the
multi-layered social programs that we have across Canada, we
have over 1.5 million children who live in poverty. Obviously
the programs and the goals we set out through our program
structure has not hit the mark. The country has changed. Things
have changed forever. We can no longer protect certain
industries. We are into the globalization of trade.
We have to get back to the basics. If we still believe in the
principles that I talked about at the beginning of my address,
that of collective ownership of the resource and of social
responsibility, then we will start from that basis and rebuild a
social services delivery system, one that will have excised from
it the abuses, or as much as one can excise from it, and one that
ensures at all times we look at the dignity of the individual.
I cannot think of anything more undignified than somebody
who has to live on welfare. I cannot think of anything as
undignified as a man or a woman who has to go to bed knowing
there is no food for their children to eat the next morning before
they send them off to school. I do not think that is what we want
as Canadians no matter what our political beliefs may be.
It is time to sit down and re-establish those fundamental
principles. Maybe we will find they are not going to be vastly
different from the principles that were laid down by this party
after the Kingston conference in the Pearson era. We will
probably find the fundamental principles of liberalism are still a
basis on which to build. We will invite people from across this
country, of various political beliefs, to help ensure that the
systems brought forward deliver the type of assistance to those
who need it the most in a way that is not a hand out but is a hand
up.
Single parents in our ridings are coming in and saying:
``Look, I am receiving $828 a month on welfare and I don't feel
good about it. I feel kind of soiled. I want to contribute. I don't
want to be a burden on society. But the circumstance I find
myself in right now is one that I have had to go to a social service
department''. They then tell us that they want to work but the
only job they can find pays $6 an hour. If they work for $6 an
hour and have to pay child care costs out of it then effectively
they have lost $200 to $300 of an $850 income. Those are the
realities of the circumstances that are out there today and they
have to be addressed. I believe we can do this together
collectively.
It is important, however, to remember a couple of things. We
have created a multi-layered bureaucracy to deliver the dollar.
By the time I go to one member and take a dollar out of his or her
pocket, run it through the system and then drop it back down to
the individual, the individual who needs the hand-up not the
hand-out, there is not enough money to do anything but keep
them on welfare and stuck in the cycle of poverty.
Somebody somewhere has to be paid to take the money, to
process the money, to drop it down to a program directorate,
down to the province and down to the municipality. We have
three levels of government taking that $1 and leaving as much as
possible intact to deliver some assistance to somebody who
needs at that moment. We have to look at that. We have to take a
very strong lead, in my view, in trying to ensure that the dollars
are not spent administering the program but the dollars are spent
on a well thought out program that will allow people to maintain
867
their dignity, to retrain if necessary, to give the type of support
so they become a taxpayer instead of a tax taker.
I am intrigued, and have been for years, with a proposal that
has been put forward by my colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood. He has put a lot of thought into it. I
have polled my constituents on it over the last number of years.
It is called a single tax system. It seeks to address the real
problems in this country. The problem is not just expenditure, it
is also revenue generation. Unless we address both problems in
tandem we still have a big problem.
To say we have economic problems because too many people
are ripping the system off through social programs is wrong. I
have addressed that. However, to turn a blind eye to the fact that
we now have a growing underground economy and a tax system
that simply does not work because it does not generate enough
revenue, in a way that it is not a disincentive to industrial
development and wealth creation, is wrong as well.
(1215 )
In the proposal put forward by my colleague from
Broadview-Greenwood we looked at a number of ways to have
a single layer of delivery so that those who need assistance the
most get the most assistance with a properly thought out
program to raise them up and reintegrate them into the
workforce and allow them become productive.
I have never met an individual who wanted to be on welfare. I
have never met an individual who wanted to be poor. I have
never met an individual who wanted to feel they could not give
their children the basics of life. I simply have not met them and I
have met a lot of people in my life.
This is an ideal opportunity for us to be bold, to go back to the
principles that have made this country great, but also to allow in
this debate a broader application of how we deliver our
programs. I firmly believe that the proposal put forward by my
colleague from Broadview-Greenwood on the single tax has
some merits about how we can deliver on a single tier, how we
can cut out layers and layers of government and bureaucracy so
that the limited dollars that come from the same source called
the taxpayer are focused and targeted to achieve the social and
economic benefits on which I think all members of this House
would agree.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to sit through
the lunch hour in order to listen to as many speakers as possible.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion that we sit through the lunch period. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the member on his election. I also would like to
congratulate the people of his riding for electing him. He made a
speech this morning which is very pertinent.
[Translation]
This speech is quite consistent with the expectations of my
party, the Bloc Quebecois. He gave us his point of view very
eloquently, and I would like to ask him a question. Does he agree
that the reform we are about to undertake should not affect
disadvantaged people in our society?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for
his complimentary comments.
I fundamentally believe that. We have to be very careful in
this country.
The poor and the disenfranchised, and that includes regions
not just individuals, are all too often easiest hit when it comes
time for government to redirect finances or to cut program
expenditures.
I always believed in opposition and I will continue to believe
it in government that the role of individual members of
Parliament is to speak up for those that lack a voice.
When necessary cuts come forward the debate will continue I
hope about who bears which part of the burden of those cuts. We
can speak here for decades about who caused what to happen.
The reality is that our present circumstances must be addressed.
I believe that any cuts in budgets, any reworking of the social
safety net must first and foremost look after the needs of the
most disadvantaged in society but also the disadvantaged
provinces like Nova Scotia and Quebec that have to rely on
equalization payments from the federal government
unfortunately.
We all want to contribute. We do not want policies from any
level of government that stop our individual citizens and our
provinces from developing to the fullness of their potential.
That really is the challenge of government after all.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in the comments of the hon. member for Dartmouth. I
think we have a socialist in Liberal clothing over there. He talks
about his belief in the state's responsibility to redistribute
wealth. Those are the policies of my friends and colleagues who
sit behind me as independents because their party was
annihilated during the last election.
He talks about the redistribution of wealth and the social
programs of which the Liberal Party is so proud. Let us
remember that these programs were introduced back in the
Liberal era of Pierre Trudeau and the just society, at which time
he borrowed money and put this country in the position we are in
today
868
to pay for these social programs. He redistributed wealth to
everyone whether they needed it or not.
(1220)
We can take, for example, senior citizens. The ex-leader of
the Liberal party, the right hon. Pierre Trudeau, is receiving the
old age security even though he is reputed to be a millionaire. Is
that the idea of redistributing wealth of the hon. member for
Dartmouth?
He mentions the fact that government can no longer deliver
these programs. My suggestion to the hon. member is that we
should be looking at social programs which direct the money to
those in need, the poor in this country. We should not be making
general sweeping blanket statements of redistributing wealth to
all those who fall into any particular category as defined by the
Liberal Party.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): I am happy that the hon.
member has asked the question.
If I listen to the policies of the Reform Party it does not
believe that government should try as part of a national
objective to ensure that no matter where one lives in this country
that one has access to quality post-secondary education.
Perhaps many members on the Reform side, if those policies and
programs were not in place, would not have been able to attain
the seats that they have. They would not have been able to find
themselves in a position to get the education that has allowed
them to work in their communities and to find a seat in this
House.
Just maybe, without those darned Liberal policies that the
member seems to be so intent on criticizing during this debate,
some individuals would not have been able to access a health
care system that ensures that people do not go bankrupt if they
have a ruptured gall bladder in this country.
Just maybe, if the members of the Reform Party are so intent
on supporting a system where there is no sense of collective
ownership of wealth in this country, then some of their
colleagues from Saskatchewan and some of their colleagues
from the other provinces in western Canada would not have been
able to get the basic services delivered to them in their home
province that Canadians and members of the Reform Party have
come to expect.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
extend to you belated congratulations on your appointment to
the Speaker's chair. I wish you well as you and your colleagues
guide the debate in this, the highest tribunal in the land.
I thank the people of Yellowhead for their support on October
25. I will endeavour to serve my constituents well.
In my comments I will be touching on two matters: first, a few
observations about the riding I am privileged to represent; and,
second, I will attempt to show what happened to countries that
have attempted to spend themselves into prosperity. If we do not
bring spending under control in this country, be it social or other
spending, we may well find ourselves going down the same
road.
First, I have a few comments on my riding. Yellowhead is a
huge riding, the third largest federal riding in Alberta. It is
interesting to note that geographically the configuration of
Yellowhead is similar to that of the state of Texas. In addition,
both are rich in oil and beef cattle.
Yellowhead also has huge deposits of gas and coal and an
active forest industry.
Nestled in the Rocky Mountains is the jewel of the Rockies,
Jasper. Our nation's most spectacular park, Jasper National
Park, attracts tourists from around the world every day of the
year.
The 90,000 plus people who live within the borders of
Yellowhead are generally an independent lot. Business deals are
still clinched with a handshake as entrepreneurs engage in the
time proven activity of human endeavour, the free enterprise
system. In general, unemployment is not the concern that it is in
other parts of the country.
I am at once proud and humbled in the opportunity to
represent and serve these people in this place. These folks are
saying to me, as other Canadians are saying to their elected
people, that enough is enough; enough spending on programs
they do not want, they did not ask for and certainly do not want
to pay for. Increasingly, people are realizing that government
spending is taking us all down a dead end road to the precipice,
to the brink. The brakes must be applied so that this nation can
edge back from the brink of economic disaster.
(1225 )
I commend the government for this social affairs debate. I am
confident that it will seriously consider suggestions made in this
House and elsewhere when the restructuring of these programs
begin.
Overspending is not just a phenomenon of the 20th century.
For centuries countries have overspent. History is littered with
examples of great empires that have been reduced to shadows of
their former greatness.
For centuries, economists, historians and observers have
documented what causes dominant countries to experience
economic decline. We need not go back to ancient civilizations,
to antiquity for examples. We only need to go back to the early
modern period, to the time of the gun powder revolution which
set in motion some of the more profound changes in modern
history.
869
There is no better example of a nation that underwent an
economic crisis by spending itself into oblivion than Spain
itself, the great power of the early modern period.
Leadership of the Spanish government was dominated by out
of control spending on the military, the bureaucracy, the church
and the nobility. Today in Canada, the tax consuming interests
find their equivalent in big government as well as transfer
payments and subsidies to businesses whether they are private
or crown corporations. Long after it became obvious that the
Spanish economy was in trouble, Spain's leaders resisted every
effort to cut costs.
Like many American and Canadian politicians today they
could not believe that the money would ever run out. Each new
setback to the economy was treated as an occasion to launch a
brand new program. Taxes were tripled between the years 1556
and 1577. The great country of Spain descended into bankruptcy
and has not really recovered.
Holland which escaped Spanish rule followed a similar
pattern of decline. The historian Jan de Vries wrote:
Increased costs, particularly in the last third of the 17th century, robbed
Dutch trade of its dynamism.
That observation should ring familiar as should another. I
continue quoting:
And as so often happens in societies when new conditions threaten their
leadership, an inflexibility permeated Dutch institutions.
As Holland went into decline, Great Britain ascended to
global dominance. After two centuries at the pinnacle of the
world economy this empire too went into decline. British
leaders like the Spanish and Dutch before them responded to the
crisis not by cutting costs but by proposing new expensive
spending ideas. As a result taxes and spending increased
dramatically.
As he watched his beloved country facing ruin, Winston
Churchill observed:
I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the
stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning,
but after a bit the carpet ends. A little further on there are our only flagstones,
and a little further on still even these break beneath your feet.
After World War II the country that exceeded any other
country in the world by any measurement rose to unprecedented
heights in terms of economic and military might.
The superpower age was thrust upon the world with the United
States leading the way. After almost half a century of
unparalleled economic growth and world leadership, America
now is showing symptoms of decline. These are high taxes, high
prices, high budget deficits, a rapidly increasing crime rate,
strong special interest groups, failures in motivation, a decline
in education and everyday competence, a high tendency to
import, moral breakdown, loss of civic spirit and an increasing
diversion of energies to non-productive pursuits.
Is Canada showing similar symptoms? The question begs the
answer.
Thousands of people, business people and professionals, are
putting forth their ideas to bring our financial house in order.
Perhaps more important, there are millions of Canadians,
ordinary people who get up each morning and go to their
respective places of work. They are the people who carefully
and prudently manage the affairs of their households and
communities, who pay the bills, who pay to all levels of
government. After all, there really is only one taxpayer. These
Canadians in a growing tide are asking governments to take bold
action.
(1230)
My home province of Alberta is once again leading the way as
it has done in the past. Alberta's provincial government, to its
credit, has recognized the folly of uncontrolled spending and
program proliferation. Alberta is taking action now. Yes, there is
and there will continue to be some pain as adjustments are made.
As expected the special interest groups are protesting. As
Margaret Thatcher observed a few years ago, they have the usual
socialist disease. They are running out of other people's money.
However the majority of Albertans, the people who pay the bills,
agree that excessive spending had to stop.
A new Parliament represents a golden opportunity to change
the way things are done. Now is the time to act. We must priorize
spending to save our social programs.
I will close with this. For all the problems we face I believe
this is the greatest country in the world, but let us keep it that
way. By getting our spending under control, not only for our
generation, but for our children and our children's children.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
find the history lesson from the member opposite quite
interesting. I must say that as a history lesson it is intriguing, but
I do not see how the dying days of imperialistic England have
had anything to do with the current modern economies, quite
frankly. I think that imperialism was dying nonetheless because
what people were saying was a whole other issue. The hon.
member is comparing apples and oranges, with all due respect.
I quite often hear the members opposite talk constantly about
giving money only to those in need. Who are they? Every time I
read something or I hear the members of the Reform Party refer
to that quite often I come away with the feeling that means
giving alms to the poorest of the poor and forgetting the rest.
We have just heard a very eloquent presentation in this House
from the member of the Bloc party just recently on the issues of
870
women which I support whole-heartedly as someone who has
worked in this area for quite some time.
I want to ask the member if he could at the very least help me
understand what his party really does mean by those in need.
How would the member define those in need?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member opposite for the question.
I think I can safely say that there is no member of the Reform
Party, let alone the Reform caucus, that would not deny
assistance to anyone who really deserves assistance. However
there are billions of dollars going to wealthy people, people who
are making above average incomes. It is those people from
whom we feel that payment should be withdrawn.
For example, the Fraser Institute and economists from all
over have shown studies that 30 per cent of wealthy people
receive 30 to 40 per cent of government assistance. That just is
not fair. It is not fair to those millions of average Canadians who
are earning $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year. It is not fair that
the tax dollars that these people pay, and God knows they are
paying enough, go to people in this upper strata.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to acknowledge the point that the debater makes. I too share
his concerns with government spending. I share his concerns
with making sure that government programs fall on those who
are most in need.
(1235 )
I would like to ask him if he is familiar with a little bit of
history called the depression of the 1930s in which the economy
settled in to a long and profound period of contraction, serious
unemployment and serious poverty. The great thinker John
Maynard Keynes pointed out that this equilibrium had huge
numbers of people suffering through no fault of their own, much
like the recessions that we have had since and that it required
government spending to increase aggregate demand and thereby
increase employment numbers.
If we were to cut spending the way the Reform Party has said
we should, balance the budget within three years, would that not
make a bad situation worse by cutting aggregate demand and
increasing unemployment and increasing poverty and thereby
making the situation much more difficult than it is already?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question. We have to remember that the
depression occurred during a time when there was not the
government involvement in the economies that there is today.
Things went relatively quickly once the crash occurred.
All we are doing today by this overspending is
procrastinating. We are charging it to the future. I suspect, and
there are economists that say this as well, that when that day
comes when we cannot spend anymore and when foreign lenders
will not lend us money anymore, what happened in New Zealand
will also happen in this country. We certainly do not want to see
that. That is why we say we have to stop spending now and
prioritize spending.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I might say in
the beginning that embarking on this major comprehensive
change to the social safety net is a bold and much needed move
by the new government. I pleased with the process that the
Minister of Human Resources Development has established
which will involve people in terms of those discussions.
As well I might point out that in this initiative, along with the
first budget of the new Liberal government, we must
demonstrate to all Canadians this is a new government with a
new agenda which places jobs and opportunities for all
Canadians first and foremost.
While taking control over the deficit and debt is critical, we
must not fall victim to the neo-conservative obsession of the
past nine years which has directly contributed to the current
crisis in Canada in terms of job losses, social unrest, increased
poverty and disillusionment throughout the country.
It will be important for this government to outline to
Canadians the limits within which we as government can work
with respect to developing new made in and for Canada
economic and social policies, especially so given the various
trade agreements in which we now find ourselves.
For example, we have to address the issue in the very near
future of the kind of federal provincial transfer system which
will provide the critical social infrastructures for most
provinces. As a nation and as a government we must ensure that
all Canadians have equal access to programs under those
economic and social policies that we implement.
Professor Tom Courchesne, a proponent of free trade, pointed
out that an east-west transfer system does not square well with
north-south economic integration. If Courchesne is correct, the
future of our ability to provide for the means of our critical
social programs throughout Canada could be at risk.
Our economy is still having to adjust to the Canada-United
States Free Trade Agreement and is now faced with both NAFTA
and GATT. Canadians do not want this government to merely
administer trade policies negotiated by the previous
government, they want a proactive government which will
ensure that policies emerging from these trade deals reflect
Canadian needs, not just the economic and foreign interests of
our neighbour to the south.
The Prime Minister has stated clearly that he will operate on
these deals in the interests of Canadians.
871
(1240 )
As members in this House, we must be forever vigilant that
economic trade agreements do not force us to the lowest
common denominators in social programs under the guise of
economic competition. We must work toward bringing up the
social, labour and environmental standards of the United States
and Mexico, our trading partners, and not buckle under to the
pressure of reducing our own programs.
Let me turn for a moment to what is perhaps one of the
greatest social tragedies in this country over the last nine to
twelve years, the farm financial crisis.
I want to try and put that in some kind of context in terms of
where we are coming from and where we are going and what we
have to do to offer some hope for the future.
I maintain it is a real serious social tragedy in our rural areas.
The farm crisis, to a great extent for political and global trade
reasons, has become accepted to a great extent around the world.
It has become almost normal in our society to hear of farmers
going broke and governments really not doing much about it.
This acceptance ignores the reality in personal terms in which
farmers and farm families and farm communities find
themselves.
Let me put that into perspective. In 1988, after eight years of
farm crisis in this country, the House of Commons in its
agricultural committee report talked about a debt of $22 billion.
After implementing the Farm Debt Review Board, farm
adjustment program and other subsidies, in 1992 we found
ourselves after the loss of thousands of farmers still in debt to
the tune of $23.9 billion.
How serious is this? It is very serious. It means that if we were
farmers in this room, if you looked one person to your left and
one person to your right, one of you would be in serious
financial trouble, faced with the possibility of losing your farm.
That is the kind of situation we find ourselves in today.
In my province of Prince Edward Island in 1991, according to
census figures, we had 2,361 farmers, a decline of 16.7 per cent
since 1986 and a 48 per cent decline of farmers since 1971. Are
we any better off today because we have lost these farmers? No,
we are not. We have deteriorating communities, a deteriorating
base on which to base community programs, rinks, social
affairs, educational systems and so on, a very serious matter.
How do we put a human face on these figures in terms of
social problems? It is an issue that you really cannot understand
unless you have experienced it. I call it economic violence, a
loss of pride in terms of those farmers affected, a feeling of
failure, increasing farm suicides, increasing family split-ups as
a result of this very serious economic problem at the farm gate.
Even with these facts and figures we continue to see over the
last nine years, coming out of Agriculture Canada and the
Government of Canada, an acceptance that we must follow the
trend that the market should make all decisions. We are seeing
that increasingly so in the new era of globalization.
There are some who would say on the other side of the House
that the free market should decide all things. I disagree very
strongly with that and I hope we do as a government.
Some people will say let us be competitive. Let us look a little
deeper into this competitive approach for a moment. What is the
nature of competition? Basically, the nature of competition is
that you get into an economic game and your objective is to
destroy the competitor. In the current kind of trade and
economic policy that we are moving toward in terms of these
globalized trade agreements, the object of the game is to pit
farmer against farmer in communities, between countries,
between provinces, across borders, in a game of trying to lower
your prices in order to access the market and in the process
destroy that farmer in that other area.
(1245 )
That is not the answer. We must move forward with economic
and social programs that bring in regulatory control, put in place
marketing programs like the Canadian Dairy Commission, the
Poultry Marketing Board, the Canadian Wheat Board, to
implement agricultural policy in the interests of rural Canada
and farmers.
The approach that has been going on for the last nine or ten
years is leading to greater and greater exploitation and I believe
to competitive poverty.
I do not believe it has to be this way. We must restore, as a new
government, a sense of direction and a sense of purpose. As I
mentioned a moment ago, we can introduce marketing
programs. We can, through our power as a federal government,
expand and strengthen farm debt review boards to deal with
these cases that are in serious financial trouble.
This is one member who is going to work toward those
objectives.
I do not believe we can allow the pressure to adapt and adjust
to the blind blameless free market on a global basis to deter us
from doing what is right in terms of the social and economic
future of rural Canada and Canadians.
There are a number of other areas that I had hoped to speak on
for a moment but I see that I am out of time so I will sit down and
receive questions.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for bringing up farming in
relation to social support programs. As the member may know, I
am originally from New Zealand where farmers were heavily
subsidized to grow things like fat lambs and all sorts of products
872
that the world did not really need. Huge stocks of butter and
lamb were put away in freezers for years and years.
As the member may also know, in New Zealand when there
was a sudden debt crisis the subsidies ended rather abruptly,
putting farmers on the same basis as other businesses. After all,
farms are businesses.
I would like to give the member an example so that I can ask
him a question. In New Zealand when the subsidies ended a lot
of farmers initially went broke. It created a whole new climate
for farming in which there had to be creativity and a look at
where the market really should be.
All of the beans for beans and pork had been imported from
the United States since the beginning of time. No one in New
Zealand grew beans for baked beans. Today, because of the loss
of subsidies and new creativity, New Zealand has become an
exporting nation of beans to Australia and back to the United
States.
There are more farmers in business today in New Zealand
making more money than they ever did under the subsidy
programs. I would like to ask the member if he agrees that there
needs to be some responsibility taken by the farmers to look for
new markets and new opportunities in new products instead of
always relying on the government to bail them out.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I happened to be in New Zealand when the value added
tax was brought in and I saw first hand the destruction of many
of the rural communities as a result of doing away with the
subsidies to the farm community.
The subsidy question has become a misnomer in that during
the GATT talks the whole thrust of the negotiations was how to
do away with subsidies. Subsidies became the issue when really
subsidies are the symptom of a greater problem globally, low
farm income, which is causing the destruction and the
deterioration of rural communities and a loss of farms world
wide.
Instead of just targeting subsidies we must look at the real
problem which is a global agricultural policy creating lots of
profits for the global corporations in terms of trade issues as
they try and have farmers in one nation compete against another
in order to access cheap supply to undermine producers in
another area and profit in the process.
(1250 )
Therefore we have to look at this much differently globally in
terms of looking at actually returning the cost of production to
farmers for the products they produce wherever they produce
them around the world. Certainly there are lots of hungry people
around the world.
The other point the hon. member makes is with regard to
farmers marketing their products. We have some great examples
of that in this country. In fact farmers are doing that.
One of the best examples is the Canadian Wheat Board.
Canagrex was a good agency which would use market
intelligence and go out to sell farm products in the interests of
the country and producers, but the previous administration
canned it.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a tremendous agency in terms
of pooling the resources of producers, acting as a single seller of
export wheat and barley, accessing the marketplace in other
countries, setting the delivery system in place and returning to
producers the best return for the product available in that
international marketplace.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, some hon.
members may know that my riding of Rosedale is located in the
heart of downtown Toronto. Its population encompasses people
who are very fortunate and are members of the business
community who are surviving in the present economic
environment to those who are far less successful in the present
environment, to the elderly and young people who are dependent
upon the support systems which Canada has developed to create
a better and humane society.
I am particularly conscious of the need to adjust our programs
to achieve a decent balance for the need of job creation and also
to protect the less fortunate members of our society.
If we were to go to Rosedale riding to areas like Moss Park,
Regent Park or St. James Town and speak to the elderly people
there they would find little comfort in the words from the former
speaker from the Reform Party who drew an analogy to the
collapse of the Spanish empire.
It was a very interesting analogy of several hundred years ago.
It did collapse from a dependence on slave labour and
importation of gold from the New World and a lot of other
problems that were developed in the 16th and 17th centuries.
However we live in a modern world with different problems. I
would urge upon this House that we must approach our problems
from a modern perspective and I am going to get to that in a
moment.
Part of the modern way in which we must approach our
problems is to understand what those problems are. Parachute
Community Employment Centre in Rosedale riding has
produced a very interesting report. I would be glad to make it
available to all members of this House.
The survey was prepared among the people of Regent Park
who are consumers of many of the services that are going to be
the subject matter of the minister's task force and study when
considering the way in which we go about reforming and
873
readjusting our delivery of services that are of need for
Canadians to fit modern realities. That survey offers some very
interesting statistics.
Seventy per cent of the people who were surveyed told us that
they could make more money taking welfare than getting jobs.
That is not an argument for lowering the amount of welfare
payments. It is an argument for that which the hon. member for
Malpeque was pointing out with respect to the agricultural
community.
The problem is that the available jobs and the training people
have for those jobs are not sufficient to enable them to take
advantage of the modern marketplace. Therefore the people we
spoke to in the survey were telling us that what they need are
better training programs. For that they need English as a second
language and for that they need literacy.
Many of them were young women. Evoking the words of the
member from Quebec who spoke recently, 25 per cent of the
women who were interviewed lost or left their jobs because of
inadequate daycare. Once out of the job market it makes it very
difficult to break back into it.
Therefore trying to get a more adequate daycare program
going in this country is a very important part of the red book and
an important part of the Liberal program.
(1255)
I would like to turn to a different perspective on this issue. To
some extent it echoes the words of the member for Malpeque. It
is the perspective of the global economy.
We have to recognize that if we are going to craft a solution to
our problems in Canada today whatever they are, whether we are
speaking of social policy, taxation policy or other policies, we
have to look at the reality of the world in which we live.
Today we live in a global economy world. It is one in which
we have recently seen the GATT changes which brought much
anguish to many members of this House when they tried to come
to grips with the problems that is imposing on our agricultural
communities. It is the world of NAFTA and a world of free
movement of capital, of goods and more and more, of peoples.
Unless we take that fundamental fact into account when we
are addressing this issue of social policy changes we will fail in
what we adjust. We cannot craft and create solutions to problems
which are and will always be uniquely and particularly Canadian
but we must take into account the global realities of the world in
which we live.
In that context I would like to draw the attention of the House
to a report from the International Labour Organization which
was reported in today's Globe and Mail. I would like to take the
opportunity to read some of that report:
Thirty per cent of the world's labour force is either out of work or
underemployed-a global jobs crisis gripping both rich and poor nations, a
United Nations agency says.
``It is a crisis that in some countries could really explode and undermine the
social fabric very badly,'' said Ali Taqi, chief of staff of the International Labour
Organization.
The Geneva-based ILO estimates that more than 820 million people
worldwide are either unemployed or working at a job that does not pay a
subsistence wage.
This evokes the words of the hon. member for Malpeque who
just spoke about the problems of our farm community. Further
on in the article it states:
Mr. Taqi said the global jobs crisis is not just the result of the recession that has
plagued the world economy in recent years.
It is something more endemic and longer lasting than that and reflects the rapid
pace of technological change and increasingly fierce global competition.
I suggest that part of the answer to our problems in our social
programs and our social agencies lies in our need to see how we
fit into this global context and the need to address an
international answer to the problem.
We cannot go this alone. We need the International Labour
Organization. We need to work with the social charter within
NAFTA and our other trading partners if we are to have long
lasting solutions to our problems.
[Translation]
On that subject, I would like to say a few words to my
colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois who talk passionately about
preserving social services in this country.
I know from experience that the world we live in today is not a
place where it is possible to solve problems by acting as an
isolated country, with an individual perspective; quite the
contrary. The solution today is global. Take the European
Community for example; more and more Brussels is the one to
determine solutions. Why? Because Spain by itself cannot solve
its problems; France alone cannot solve its own problems.
Therefore, the European countries have to work together to find
a solution.
I suggest we have the same kind of situation here in Canada.
In order to solve social problems in this country and to face the
difficulties created in a way by the United States, we must have a
national policy. We will not solve problems by creating more
tariff or non-tariff barriers between various regions of Canada
but by working together to ensure our security. It is through
co-operation and hard work leading to a strong economy that we
will solve these problems.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois to
review this issue with the other members of this House and to
co-operate with them in order to find Canadian solutions,
efficient solutions which will apply to national and international
problems alike.
(1300 )
[English]
On that point, Mr. Speaker, I see my time is drawing to a close.
I would like to complete my remarks by going back to what I
heard the member for Malpeque saying. I would to some extent
differ from him on this. I am not sure that the solutions to our
874
problems are something we are able to construct by ourselves
without facing the facts of the international world in which we
live.
It seems to me that our duty as members of this House is to
look and serve as a prism to the global world. If it is a world of
greater competitiveness and greater free trade, then we must
serve in a way in which that international world may be brought
to our fellow Canadian citizens and then turn around and craft
solutions to problems which are both local and global and take
into account that global context.
I am confident that when the minister responsible, the task
force which he sets up and the members of this House examine
these questions, they will be looking for solutions which are
both local and global, but will also take into account the need for
a strong Canadian solution to our problems. That in turn will
enable us to exist in a global environment, one that is more and
more difficult but one which forces us to provide solutions for
our citizens which will enable them to live with dignity in our
own country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I feel I must
comment on what was said by the hon. member who was
referring directly to my party when he asked us to forget about
implementing solutions like a separate country that would be
too small. I can inform him that there are small, developed
countries with a vigorous economy and social programs and a
standard of living that are enviable.
The globalization we are experiencing today will actually
make peoples who may be part of several nations, and this is no
mean task, want to defend their identity. Identity also extends to
social security programs and how they are organized.
Many members have spoken to defend Canada's social
security system, and I can understand that. I also heard them
mention its defects and that it needs to be modernized. In my
speech in reply to the speech from the throne, I discussed many
shortcomings we in Quebec have noticed for a long time and
have been trying to remedy in negotiations with the federal
government. Although we saw what the problems were and
wanted to make adjustments and save money, which is indeed a
priority today, the federal government constantly objected to
our proposals. I will get back to this problem, but it seems to me
that although we should listen to what hon. members opposite
have to say, they should listen as well and realize there are two
social security plans in Canada at this time, a Canadian system
and a Quebec system.
Mr. Graham: Mr. SPeaker, I thank the hon. member for
Mercier for her comments, and although my answer may not be
entirely adequate because I have not had time to develop this
aspect, I am sure that during this Parliament there will be
opportunities for discussion to clarify our thoughts on the
matter.
To get back to your comment on small countries, if we take,
for example, the European Community, small countries which
maintain their identity can do so because they have agreed to
give up a certain amount of their sovereignty within a broader
context. I can say that to the people of Ontario, there is no
difference. Fine, we in Ontario could say that we want our own
solution. Everybody wants his own solution, but we have to look
at the facts. We have to be practical.
(1305)
Everybody cannot have his own solution. The problems of
GATT are a good illustration of this. Canada wanted to keep the
supply management system we built up over the years, but we
could not keep it any more. The other countries would not agree.
We have to face the facts. It is not just a matter of saying what we
want. The important thing is what we can accomplish.
In this situation we have to look at the global economic
climate and our own resources. I believe that it will be much
easier to deal with these problems as Canadians than as
individual provinces.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I want to inform the Chair that, from now on during this
debate, the speakers for the Official Opposition will use
10-minute periods, followed by 5-minute periods for questions
and comments.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour of being the critic on issues affecting seniors.
This is probably because of a certain wisdom I gained along with
my white hair. My field of responsibility includes issues related
to andragogy, gerontology and geriatrics. These are issues
which must be examined with a very human approach.
During the referendums and election campaigns in Quebec,
the opponents of sovereignty for Quebec took advantage of the
insecurity of some older people and tried to scare them by
saying that they would lose their old age security pension if
Quebec became a sovereign nation, arguing that the government
of the province would no longer be able to pay for their pension.
Thank goodness, many seniors no longer believe those lies.
The results of the 1992 referendum in Quebec as well as the
election of 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois are obvious proof
of that.
The issues concerning seniors are partially dealt with by two
departments: Human Resources Development and Health, as
well as by the Seniors Secretariat, which is responsible for
875
providing to seniors information on federal programs and
services, while also ensuring liaison with federal and provincial
departments implementing programs for seniors.
Also, the National Advisory Council on Aging advises and
helps the Minister of Health regarding the quality of life of
seniors, either when the minister submits issues to the Council
or when the Council itself decides to act on its own. Its role is to
circulate information and, among others tasks, to publish
reports.
So, why is there no secretary of state responsible for issues
relating to seniors, since this is an area of vital importance?
Recent studies reveal that one person in eight is over 65 years
of age. In the next ten years, the number of people over 65 will
increase by at least 40 per cent.
The baby boomers are now in their forties. In 1981, 19 per
cent of Canadians over 65 years of age were in their eighties. In
2001, that is 20 years later, this proportion will be 24 per cent.
Life expectancy is increasing, along with related problems.
More and more people over 65 years of age will have to rely
on the ability to pay of those workers aged 15 to 64. Around the
year 2011, for the first time ever, there will be more older people
than persons aged 15 or less. Moreover, this group of older
people will be better educated than today's seniors.
(1310)
All these factors show us the importance of planning for the
future, starting today. Of course there are many programs to help
seniors, but the isolation of seniors means that most of them are
completely uninformed and unable to take the necessary action
to obtain this information. We absolutely must encourage
seniors to be independent, by letting them join society and not
by keeping them apart.
Most seniors prefer to live at home, to take care of themselves
and to make their own decisions about their life. According to
journalist Monique Richer of the daily Journal de Montréal,
there is a big problem among seniors: the suicide rate of people
aged 65 to 80 has increased significantly in Quebec, since the
suicide rate of seniors has risen from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1977 to
21.9 in 1987. Montreal has a service called ``Suicide Action
Montréal'' but it seems to be little used, unlike other services for
young people or other groups.
Seniors must also be given access to information on health
services. Our health system is among the best in the world, but
spending on health is growing faster than the population and
inflation. Canada spends over $60 billion a year on health.
Obviously, as people grow older, they have health problems and
often lose independence as well.
Formerly, our ancestors kept old people at home with them,
but today, with our new lifestyle, for both young and old, living
together no longer seems possible.
We cannot improve seniors' quality of life by isolating them,
nor will we save money by cutting benefits under the Canada
Pension Plan, since these income changes would cost taxpayers
dearly. We must not confuse old age security pensions with
welfare benefits.
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. May I ask for a quorum call.
Mr. Duhamel: Why would you do that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have a quorum.
[Translation]
Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Argenteuil-Papineau may continue his speech.
Mr. Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that
half of our seniors receive income security benefits and are
caught in a cycle where all they do is keep waiting for their
cheques. Removing programs for the elderly, eliminating
current services or lowering pension costs would not improve
the lot of the elderly.
The elderly are not rich people. According to Statistics
Canada, 1991 data show that almost half of retired seniors, 43.8
per cent of them, are living below the poverty line. This is a
serious problem, and let us not forget that the seniors want to be
a part of Canadian society.
Therefore, the government must ask one of its members to
resolve that sensitive issue, because previous government
measures only succeeded in keeping seniors inactive, isolating
them and making them feel financially insecure.
(1315)
So, to improve the quality of life of our seniors, we must make
sure their living quarters suit their needs and allow them to stay
at home, and lower the outrageous costs of seniors' residences,
hospitals, et cetera, by providing, for example, home support,
transportation services, recreational programs, and more.
We need to set up a 24 hours a day, seven days a week
information system and to promote it. The federal government
has released $3 million for the installation of new telephone
equipment needed to answer inquiries about old age pensions.
Seniors also need to be informed of the existence of such
services and to be provided with other similar services related to
their health, lodging, et cetera.
Additional resources are needed to reach incapacitated
seniors, if necessary. As recommended by a Canadian seniors
association, a standing national commission must be set up to
protect the rights of seniors who want to keep on working.
Finally, I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that every
year seniors represent a higher percentage of our population and
876
that the government must take into account their active presence
when it puts forward its new policies.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has put forward a number of points of view about how
he thinks the interests of his constituents, residents of his
province and all Canadians would be better served by this type
of review.
Normally when you deal with wholesale restructuring any
institution, any group of programs, any fundamental policies
you would normally start out with certain parameters in mind,
certain givens.
I do not want to say sacred cows because there are no such
things.
We heard from the Reform Party earlier that what it wants is to
cut, cut, cut and it is not so terribly concerned about the impact
of those cuts. I have listened intently to members of the Bloc
Quebecois, who are not interested simply in cutting, that is not
what they are saying. They want to build a better system to
ensure that those individuals needing help the most get it.
I would like to ask the member if he could give me a few ideas
as to the parameters that this review should take place in and
what should be the starting point. What should be the givens as
to what we are trying to attain.
Is it to make sure that income security for seniors is
maintained? Is it to ensure that transfers to the provinces are
maintained at a level that would allow the provinces to have
services of equal quality no matter what the fiscal situation of
the province is? Is it just to maintain transfers to provinces such
as Quebec to administer provincial social assistance programs?
I just throw those ideas out. If he could give me some sense
about what he would like to see maintained and built upon in this
review it would be helpful to me.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
remarks of my colleague opposite. There is something I need to
point out to him. When the Coalition des aînés met in Montreal,
in the riding of my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
I had the pleasure of meeting, at the Golden Age, members of
this organization which brings together various associations of
senior citizens and retired workers in the province of Quebec.
These people are very much afraid of seeing either their
pensions or the services they receive cut. By the way, I want tell
my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce that it is with great
pleasure that I visited this huge centre where seniors can go to
take part in recreational activities or to receive health care and
other types of services.
(1320)
I must tell my colleague opposite that we, members of the
Bloc, do not want any cuts that would affect seniors. It is the
same with transfers to the provinces. The amount of money
transferred to Quebec must remain at the present level. We do
not want any change in these transfers.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Calgary
Southeast is seeking the floor but has a very little time. I would
ask her to please keep that in mind.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question will be very brief.
I appreciate the member's comments regarding seniors but he
and all of his colleagues have been directing their comments
toward asking for continued federal and provincial support for
programs. They have been asking the federal government to
continue to fund the different and varied social programs within
their provinces. They have also been talking about federal and
provincial co-operation.
Given all that, how is the member going to meet his mandate
for separation when he has expectations such as he has just
expressed for co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments?
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question
of my hon. colleague of the Reform Party. I have to admit that
what I dealt with in my comments pertains more specifically to
Quebec. But since I am the official opposition critic for all
senior citizens in Canada, I would certainly not advocate
anything detrimental to other provinces. Those things we
suggest for Quebec, which is still part of Canada as far as I
know, apply as well to the other provinces.
When Quebec is a sovereign nation, as I hope it will be in the
coming years, we will stop paying taxes to Canada at some
point. We will then be able to afford the same services our senior
citizens get right now.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate
on the funding and future of social security programs.
For Canadians and Quebecers, these programs include a set of
services ranging from an income security policy to the Canada
Pension Plan and a host of other services.
As I prepared this speech, I reflected that one could not
engage in this debate without considering a number of
circumstances that make this debate a rather painful exercise.
The government that tabled this motion belongs to the same
party which was elected nearly 25 years ago on a promise to
build a just society that, at the time, under the leadership of
former
877
Prime Minister Trudeau, would be based on the principles of
equality, fraternity and liberty, principles that inspired me and
probably inspired you as well, Mr. Speaker.
I reflected that after 25 years, it was time to consider what has
been accomplished, because if we examined our social
programs, we must also consider the people who at some time in
their lives may need government assistance. And it is sad to have
to conclude that 25 years later, poverty has not dimished. Not
only that, it has started to affect groups in our society which
were normally assumed to be immune.
Of course, when I talk about poverty, I use the term as defined
by Statistics Canada. In other words, being poor means having
to spend 56.2 per cent of one's income on food, shelter and
clothing.
(1325)
As parliamentarians, we are being asked to discuss
restructuring social security programs at a time when Canadian
and Quebec society are in very bad shape. Granted, poverty has
changed. In the seventies, when the Senate did its wide-ranging
study on poverty, being poor was associated more with the
elderly in our society. This was so true that the cover of the
Senate report showed an ailing, toothless, elderly woman, and
that was more or less the image we had of poverty.
In the 90s and as we approach the turn of the century, poverty
has changed. It now has a new face. It affects young people
between the ages of 18 and 30 who do not necessarily lack
training. Single parents are particularly affected. It is also a fact
of life for those workers who, after spending part of their lives as
active members of the labour market, are suddently excluded
because of technological change. There are people who worked
for 15, 20 or 25 years as part of the so-called labour aristocracy
and who made a good living.
I think that the government's role is to provide these people
with generous, accessible and transferable services, and I was
delighted when I heard the Minister of National Health and
Welfare announce her position during the reply to the Speech
from the Throne. That is how she defined social security
programs and that is also my understanding of what they should
be.
What I find rather disturbing, and this is where I disagree with
the government, is that for the past ten years, in any discussion
on public finances and government policy, there has always
been an attempt to reduce the debate to mere dollars and cents.
For the past ten years the government has been proposing
spending cuts as though that were the only game in town. Of
course there are ways to save money and of course there is too
much fat in the government administration, but I think we are
asking the wrong questions.
If we are convinced that providing social security programs is
not a matter of choice but a reflection of our level of civilization,
the question should be how we can access additional sources of
revenue.
Even in a zero deficit situation, we will need more resources
to be able to fund social programs at the levels that will be
required in the years to come.
We in the Bloc Quebecois realize there are several
alternatives for obtaining additional revenue, and we think that
this exercise is not just a matter of making spending cuts
haphazardly without being overly concerned about the
repercussions. One alternative that should be considered is that
of tax reform. As we have said repeatedly, we are talking about a
review of the corporate tax system. We know for a fact there are
people in our society who are not doing their fair share.
On the government side, there is a consensus that Canada has
done everything humanly possible to tax corporations.
However, when we look at what Canada raises in the way of
revenue, when we look at the tax rate for corporate profits and
compare it with the rate applied in other countries, including the
OECD countries which we often use as a benchmark, you would
be surprised to hear that the tax rate for corporate profits in
1990, for instance, was 39 per cent in France, 50 per cent in
Germany, 46 per cent in Italy and 50 per cent in Japan.
Meanwhile, in Canada it was 29 per cent.
To me it is clear that if we want to discuss the viability of
social security programs, we also have to talk about the tax
treatment of corporations.
Furthermore, and at this point I want to recall some comments
one of our colleagues made with a great deal of conviction, and
although I did not agree with the substance, I must say it was
very well said, I believe that the ultimate test for any changes
that are made in the years to come will be that they will have to
help people find jobs.
(1330)
Putting people back to work has to be more that a few empty
words with little backing: jobs, jobs, jobs. Some countries
manage to have 80, 90 even 92 per cent of their population in the
work force. Can you imagine having 92 per cent of the labour
force actually working! And strangely enough, these are small
countries. These are countries which decided to implement a full
employment policy. Such a policy is not an irrelevant concept.
To make it work, it has to become an obsession. The government
must make the decision, get all the partners together-unions,
employers, corporations, professionals, students-and ask them
to endorse the choices made for our society and to help achieve
them. Naturally, you are going to tell me that Canada has a
special problem, because it has two levels of government and
ten regional labour markets competing with each other, and I
agree. This is why I am a sovereigntist. This makes it very
878
difficult to set up the elements, the goals, the main guidelines of
a full employment policy.
I would say that in the years to come, we will not have a
choice, we will have to aim for full employment, and this will
mean more involvement of government in people's lives. What
we have been hearing for ten years, and what the government
side is still more or less advocating, is that the best government
is the one that governs the least. I do not agree with that. I think a
government has responsibilities and must take action. I am
going to give you the example of an area in which it would be
useful that the government not only did not cut its spending, but
rather increase the resources, because it is an area which creates
jobs and has a high rate of return, and that is social housing.
When you build a thousand units, you create 2,000 jobs. This is a
good investment with a high rate of return.
Yet, we are in situation-and this will be my conclusion,
because my time is almost up and I would not want to break the
rules-which shows that it is not true that the best government is
the one that governs the least. I believe that the best guarantee
we can give to people that we will maintain strong, accessible
and generous social programs is to target government spending
towards areas that generate large spin-offs because one of these
areas on which we can bet for the future is social housing.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I extend my
compliments to the member for his excellent address on social
problems and so on in this country.
He seemed to think that the problem with social programs
today is the problem of lack of revenue, not a problem of too
much expenditure. Then he went on to elaborate on his thesis
that we should have more corporate taxes and more income
taxes.
The member for Calgary Southwest said the other day that we
are close to a tax revolt in this country because taxes are so high.
Corporate profits have plunged by billions of dollars. Tax
revenues have gone down this year. The hon. member still thinks
that we have a problem with not enough revenue rather than too
much expenditure.
There is always talk about social programs as categories of
having to pay money to seniors and to the unemployed. What
about the need? There are some people who are elderly and have
lots of money and are in no need of additional assistance. There
are a lot of people who are unemployed making $50,000 or
$100,000 in the same year who perhaps should not be eligible to
receive unemployment.
(1335 )
My question to the member is when does he think that we
should stop this idea that the problem is not enough revenue,
that the problem is too much expenditure being directed in the
wrong places?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, if we all thought alike in this
House, your task would be much easier, but also less interesting.
What we have here is a good example of a fundamental
difference of opinion. Of course, some expenditures could be
reviewed; it is a premise and I understand that. But it does not
seem to be the real problem. When I speak about reviewing
taxation, I am not saying to my hon. colleague we should review
personal taxes. I think there is a good enough consensus on this,
except maybe in the case of the very rich, because Canada is the
only OECD country not to tax wealth. I am sure the hon. member
is aware of that.
What I am saying to him is that we will have to strive to find
additional revenues because the pressure on social programs
will not disappear, because our population is getting older and
because there are social evils inherent to the type of society we
have in Canada in 1994. And that type of society is one where 50
per cent of the people have part-time jobs. When you hold a
part-time job, you have 7 chances out of 10 of becoming poor at
one point or another in your lifetime. These jobs are precarious
and poorly paid and they offer no security whatsoever. Since this
is our reality, since this is what we have to deal with, there is no
magic formula, there is no way we can close our eyes and just
hope the situation will change.
There are a few possibilities though if we want to find
additional revenues. Would my hon. colleague agree with me
that, if we look at tax rates in the industrialized countries with
which we usually compare ourselves, Canada has not yet tapped
every source of revenue it would be entitled to? Would he not
agree that there are sectors where, if the government wanted to
act, it could put money back into circulation, it could leave more
money so that people could take care of themselves and would
not have to turn to social services? This would seem to be an
interesting approach.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to be given the opportunity to address
this question because it is one of the more important ones that
we will be discussing for several months no doubt during this
35th Parliament.
879
There are a number of basic questions that we need to study
together in the spirit of co-operation and openness. Obviously
we bring forth different values and different views. I accept that
and respect it.
Perhaps the first and most fundamental question for me
concerns what programs we need as a nation in order to respond
in a very generous and fair way to Canadians in need?
That begs another question immediately. Who identified
these Canadians in need and who defines what a particular need
is? Clearly the government has a great responsibility in doing
that. It has also indicated by virtue of the debates that is has held
on a number of questions such as peacemaking, cruise missiles,
the pre-budget debate and this debate that it is interested in the
views of all parliamentarians. The government is to be
applauded for having taken this initiative.
What the Liberals want is a restructuring of our programs to
meet more needs with greater efficiency. I would hope that we
can embrace that priority, that goal, that objective. This is the
Liberal position and this is what we, as members of the
government, are going to fight to have happen.
Without being malicious or unkind, as I understand the
various comments that have been made, the NDP, for example,
and I can speak primarily of Manitoba because its members are
more numerous there proportionately speaking than they have
been in the House, is really saying do not touch anything. Do not
touch any of the social programs.
I am sure there will be a number of members who will be
anxious to correct me if I misinterpret the Reform Party. I would
welcome that. The Reform Party has been described by other
colleagues as cut, cut, cut or slash and burn. Those are not my
words but I have repeated them. I would prefer to be a bit more
dignified and say dismantle and rebuild. Perhaps it comes to the
same thing.
(1340)
[Translation]
It seems to me that we have already been told that all the Bloc
Quebecois does is talk about is Quebec. I do understand how
important Quebec is for the Bloc, but it should remember that it
is the Official Opposition and that, as such, it must speak for all
Canadians, and represent them all, from coast to coast.
Quebec, or rather the Bloc Quebecois, is asking for a transfer
to Quebec, with no strings attached. But this raises the following
fundamental question: Why only to Quebec? It seems to me that
overlapping and duplication represent a problem not only in
Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada.
Overlapping and duplication happen in two ways: between the
federal government, the provinces and territories, and within
each jurisdiction; and within the federal government, the
provinces, the territories, and sometimes even within municipal
governments. Co-ordination does not always exist even within a
province or a region. The fact is that we have three levels of
government, where overlapping does occur, and the issue is not
raised often enough.
Members on all sides want to get rid of overlapping which is
very costly for Canadians. Why? So that we can respond in a
better, more efficient way to the needs of all Canadians.
[English]
There have been some references this morning with respect to
child care. I want to remind all members that the Liberal Party of
Canada which has been chosen by Canadians to govern has made
a commitment to child care. It is a very responsible one, up to
50,000 places per year to a total of 150,000 providing the
economy grows at 3 per cent or more.
In the current economic situation in which we find ourselves,
with a debt which has exceed $500 billion and a deficit in the
rage of $45 billion, surely linking this kind of program for those
most in need with those particular conditions, 3 per cent growth,
is a responsible decision.
When we talk about funding our social programs it seems to
me that we cannot avoid talking of taxation, revenues and
expenditures. One option is to reduce, cut, slash, call it what you
will. Another is to recognize the fundamental issue, on which we
are all in agreement, that the middle class in particular feels that
it cannot bear any more taxes. It is angry. There is anger out
there.
However, there is another issue and I do not say it in an
arrogant and pompous way. Are there others out there who are
not paying their fair share? It is true that there are influential and
rich families able to shield millions or perhaps even billions of
dollars? Should we be asking questions such as should there be
an inheritance tax in this country?
Is it true as well that there is money being transferred to other
countries and being shielded, at least in part, from taxes being
paid to Canada for the benefit of all Canadians? Is it true, and I
believe it is, that there are Canadians who earn substantial sums
of money each year but who pay no taxes? Is that fair? Is it
equally true that there are profitable corporations that pay no
taxes or virtually no taxes?
If there is some truth to all the questions I have raised, and I
have not even raised the whole question of the black market
economy which apparently if everyone were paying taxes
according to the rules would probably eliminate the deficit, is it
any wonder that Canadians are saying just a minute, why is it
that the government cannot get money from those sources that
are not paying their fair share?
880
(1345 )
I invite all of my colleagues, and I say this in a very serious
way, to share their ideas openly in this debate. I recognize that
there are divergent views. That is what democracy is all about. I
believe that is what a strong democracy is all about.
We should all try to come at least to some basic agreement on
what we are trying to do. It seems to me that while we may vary
in our approaches to how this might be done, what we
collectively want to do is identify the Canadians in need and
define conditions under which they can be helped.
If we can do that I believe that putting forward the
mechanisms, the programs to respond to that will be much
easier.
Whether we are from the Bloc Quebecois, with a particular
orientation, or other parties in which we believe in a Canada as a
whole with some improvements to what we have, which is
probably the finest country in the world, I have always
wondered why one would ever want to change something that is
the finest. Perhaps some day after having listened a bit more I
shall come to some sort of understanding.
I would like everyone to make a commitment to look at social
programs, look at taxation, look at the fundamental issues
facing this whole country in such a way as to build a better
country for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
closely to my hon. colleague's speech. I think there is some truth
to what he said.
Now, I would like to point out to him some of the differences
that may exist between Canadians from other parts of Canada
and Quebecers. French-speaking Canadians have always
depended a great deal on the federal government in Ottawa to
safeguard their rights. We in Quebec, on the other hand, have
always felt that where overlap or duplication occur, it would be
preferable to assign these rights to the Government of Quebec.
When the Fathers of Confederation gathered in 1865, 1866
and 1867, English-speaking people supported the idea of a
single government. Quebec is responsible for the fact that we
have two levels of government in this country, because its
representatives insisted that this course of action be taken.
Therefore, I think it is very important to note that while Bloc
Quebecois members speak on behalf of Quebecers, they are also
concerned about problems affecting other regions of Canada as
well. I hope the hon. member understands this.
I also want to congratulate him on his speech. As this session
progresses, it would appear to us that the Liberals have split into
two factions, one which I would qualify as Liberal-Reform and
the other, as Liberal with social-democratic leanings.
This debate will likely give members a chance to analyze
opposite views and ultimately to take a coherent stand.
As for us, what matters most, as I have stated repeatedly in
this House, are the rights of the least fortunate in our society. I
listened to the speeches of the Reform Party members and I
think we all agree that the reform process now being initiated
must not affect the most disadvantaged members of society.
Would the hon. member care to respond to what I have just said?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He
has raised a number of excellent questions.
First, I agree with him completely when he says that we have
to help the less fortunate any way we can. As for francophones
outside Quebec who presumably have benefited from their
association with the federal government, I would simply like to
remind my hon. friend that all of us have at some time or
another, for different reasons, benefited from the federal
government, not just francophones outside Quebec. Perhaps I
misunderstood, but listening to him, I got the feeling that
because there are not many of us and because we are scattered
across the country, we need the federal government. Look, we
have been fighting for a long time for our language and culture,
and we are doing a good job of it, even if there are only a handful
of us. Yes, it is true that we need the government from time to
time, but I assure you we can stand on our own two feet.
(1350)
As for the existence, supposedly, of two factions within the
party, let me say that we are a united party. We may have our
differences. I have three daughters and I can assure you that,
while I raised them all the same way, there are differences
nevertheless. In spite of this, we are a family and we love one
another a great deal. I love them a lot and I hope the reverse is
also true.
Therefore, please do not compare the Liberals with the
Reform Party, because such a comparison could make me
seriously ill. We want to improve upon existing measures. A
Liberal looks at an existing measure and thinks about possible
improvements. That is what we want to do.
Lastly, my hon. colleague speaks of Quebec and yes,
occasionally, even of Canada. Even my young colleague who
made an excellent speech earlier mentioned all of Canada, as did
others. But you must do so more often. You are the official
opposition and must speak for all of Canada. When you see a
problem outside Quebec, you should speak about it because you
sit in opposition, I hope, on behalf of all Canadians.
881
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I had not expected
to participate in this debate today, but I welcome this
opportunity to speak in this debate on human resources
development.
What we have heard today are many excellent presentations
such as the presentation by the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth which reminded us that there are many
organizations in Canada that are made up of relatively wealthy
individuals who receive grants and awards. Perhaps those
organizations, just as members of Parliament, just as many other
Canadians who have more, should think about giving up their
privileges, opportunities and grants to help those who have less.
It is certainly something worth considering.
I want to say in response to a comment made by the member of
the Bloc Quebecois earlier that there are reform Liberals and
there are social democratic Liberals, that in fact all Liberals in
this party today, I am certain, are committed to Canada's social
welfare program. Moreover all of them like myself regard the
development of Canada's social welfare program as one of the
greatest accomplishments of Canadian liberalism and the
Canadian Liberal Party.
There have been several interesting observations and very
fine speeches by members of the Reform Party. One speaker
alluded earlier to the example of Great Britain and compared it
to the kinds of things that are happening in Canada today and to
what has been called by others the British disease. We have
heard that kind of term, not simply from Mrs. Thatcher, but from
others. I think it is one of those terrible simplifications that
obscures a broader truth.
If we look at western Europe since 1945 what we find is that
many of the countries that have had the highest growth rates
have been countries where government participation in the
economy is higher than it was in Great Britain. In fact if we look
at government participation in the economy since 1945 the
western economies, many of them built up from the ruins of the
wartime period, are those which have spent more on social
welfare and have done better in terms of economic growth.
It may be a surprise to learn it, but between 1950 and 1990 the
country that had the fastest rate of economic growth in Europe of
the major nations was Italy, a country that had a high degree of
spending on social welfare. Germany is another example.
Second, in looking at British society, those who have looked
most closely and most recently, including Mrs. Thatcher's
supporters, have said that the difficulty with Great Britain is not
so much the fact that Great Britain spent more on social welfare,
not so much that it tried to develop strong programs to help the
poorest in society, but rather because Britain failed so badly in
training and education.
(1355 )
Maurice Cowling, one of Mrs. Thatcher's academic
supporters, has written a book about British society. What he
points out is that Britain has failed very badly in the area of
training and education while other countries in continental
Europe have done so much better. I think that bears a lesson for
us.
In Canada we too have spent a lot of money on education and
training. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who
spoke earlier today, talked about this question in her address.
She talked about the need for improvement in training and
suggested that training could be done best by the private sector.
I am pleased to report that the hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam is a graduate of the University of Waterloo.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. English: The hon. member for Peterborough is a
professor at Trent University.
The University of Waterloo has pioneered co-op education in
Canada and has done so so successfully that it far out-ranks
Trent University in the rankings every year in Maclean's. The
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam went through this co-op
program, one which I know very well because I taught there for
20 years myself. In that co-op program she benefited
enormously from the support of the government. That co-op
program, which is being copied by many universities throughout
Canada, is an excellent example of what business, government
and educators can do together.
The initial idea for the program came from the business
community in the area as did the idea for the university. The
business people came to educators and said: ``Let us work
together to make sure that the transition from the educational
place to the work place is made easier, that students have work
experience and they can carry that experience further''.
The result has been a much higher degree of success in getting
jobs on the part of graduates. There has been a lot of satisfaction,
as the hon. member herself said. The program has worked very
effectively. It is a program that worked not because of private
initiative, but because a government worked with business and
educators to create a coherent system of training and education.
In the Waterloo area, the example of the University of
Waterloo has been followed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier University
and also by our secondary school boards, particularly the
Waterloo Catholic Board of Education. I have worked with that
board myself in working out training programs for students to
enable them to move from the high schools and universities into
the work place. Students who are within those programs and who
882
have a more direct experience in the work place find the
transition to higher education and to work much easier.
The difficulty we find is that so many training programs are
just not working in the way we had hoped. That is why we are
calling for a restructuring. This is most relevant of course to any
discussion on human resources development.
In a recent study done by the Canadian Guidance and
Counselling Foundation, 73.9 per cent of the community
employment agencies, 72.4 per cent of Canada employment
centres and 45.2 per cent of counselling services in colleges and
CEGEPs report that they turn clients away because they do not
meet funding criteria. This is simply not good enough. The costs
are high.
The human costs of not watching what happens with training
at the lowest level, at the intermediate level and at the
post-secondary level are very high for our society.
As an educator, I personally feel-and the hon. member for
St. Boniface has written some excellent pieces on this
subject-that we need to restructure our training programs in
the broadest possible way. I would echo the thoughts of the
member for St. Boniface in suggesting that we all share these
problems together. Training and education in this country is
very costly. When we compare the international rate of spending
on education we find that Canada, a very wealthy nation, spends
a percentage of GNP that is higher than almost any other nation.
If we are not the highest we are certainly close to it. All of us are
aware that we could spend this much better.
Our responsibility as members of this House, of all parties, is
to work together to improve this very crucial sector of Canadian
society. In doing so we will start to recreate that sense of
initiative among younger people and that sense of purpose that
is so lacking now.
(1400)
I think we can work together and we would achieve so much
for this great country if we would do so.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
The Chair is well aware that five minutes remain for questions
and comments.
[Translation]
We will continue after oral questions.
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to issue a progress report on a matter of vital importance for
my riding as well as for Quebec and Eastern Canada. I am
talking about the
Irving Whale, the tanker which has been lying
on the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for over 20 years.
Having said that, I wish to inform the residents of the
Magdalen Islands that a final decision is forthcoming. The
diligence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of
Transport as well as the efforts of my colleague from Malpèque
have made it possible to accomplish this much in such a short
period of time.
I want to reassure the people of the Magdalen Islands: the
Irving Whale's tanks were inspected and there are no leaks.
I wish to state here today that we are the ones who will see to it
that the matter of the Irving Whale is settled, not the present
leader of the opposition who never even looked into the matter
when he was himself Minister of the Environment.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to join the population of
Beauharnois-Salaberry in wishing good luck to free-style
skier Jean-Luc Brassard who will be taking part in the Winter
Olympic Games, in Lillehammer.
After winning the World Cup for the 1992-93 season, a feat I
just had to mention, world champion Jean-Luc Brassard won an
event, last week end, which could help him to repeat and win
another World Cup this season. In no time, his hard work and
dedication to a fantastic winter sport has earned him the
admiration and respect of all who know him. My constituents
can be proud to have amongst them such a talented young man,
whose many achievements make all Canadians very proud.
I want to wish good luck to Jean-Luc in his event, to be held
on February 14. The people of Beauharnois-Salaberry will be
cheering for him.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, the government
must recognize the importance of the prairie farmers and how
883
vulnerable they are to actions beyond their control. These
people strive to earn an honest living and they do so using sweat
and tears. Why do they constantly have to meet one challenge
only to be confronted by another?
The farmers in my riding of Crowfoot, Alberta are a sturdy
bunch who let nothing get them down. They truly represent the
real spirit of the west: When you are down, get up, brush off the
dust and get on with life. But when you are being held hostage,
how do you get on with life?
The west coast strike will have disastrous effects on the
economy if we do not get millions of tonnes of grain, potash and
forest products moving and with that our reputation as a reliable
supplier will be tarnished.
Hopefully the farmers will survive. Thank goodness they
usually do. Meanwhile the reputation of the government is
taking a beating in the agricultural community over this issue.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, this is a tribute to Joshua Kakegamic of Keewaywin in
northwestern Ontario who died in a snowmobile accident while
trying to save his friend, John Kalaserk, an Inuit preacher.
Josh Kakegamic was a talented woodland native artist whose
works are found in the permanent collections of major Canadian
art galleries and in private collections in many countries.
As a business associate and friend, I encouraged him to draw
upon his own rich, but not always happy, life experiences which
collectively would reveal the very essence of his native culture.
His paintings reveal his vision of a powerful life force within all
of God's creations and the joy he saw in that sacred relationship
of perfect harmony.
In his short life he touched many lives and enriched the world
through his art, his friendship and his faith which can be best
described in the words of John 15:13: ``Greater love hath no man
than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends''.
Josh Kakegamic: husband, father, community leader, friend,
creator, hero. He was 41 years old.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, as a recent
chair of the cancer campaign in Peterborough and honorary
chair of the Terry Fox campaign, I am very concerned about
anything that increases tobacco use among young people.
That is why I am concerned about tobacco smuggling. This
puts cheap glamorized tobacco into the hands of children who
are often below the legal age for smoking.
I am also concerned about efforts to lower taxes on tobacco as
a means of combating smuggling. While the merits, fairness and
effectiveness of tobacco taxes can be debated, I have no doubt
that high price has been a particularly effective deterrent against
smoking for the young.
I hope the government continues to protect young people from
the proven dangers of smoking. Let us turn all the resources of
government and public opinion against smugglers who are
killing our children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, we have just
learned that Mr. Anthony Manera was appointed as the new
president of CBC. This is good news indeed for the CBC and for
all Canadians.
Given the current situation, we need someone with experience
in charge of this top-notch national institution. And this is
certainly the case with this appointee. He knows the CBC's nuts
and bolts and is ready to act. Under him, the CBC will be able to
regain control and reassert loud and clear its role as a public
broadcaster.
We want to wish the best of luck to the new president, Mr.
Manera, and to the CBC.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I must thank the people of my riding for their support and
their confidence in the last federal election.
The purpose of my statement is to inform you and all hon.
members that the beautiful riding of Terrebonne, just northeast
of Montreal, does not have a commuter train service, unlike
municipalities situated at the other end of the island. For many
years, this has been a hot issue in my region, marked by much
hesitation and delay.
So, I would like to bring it to the government's attention and
also to say that in the famous omnibus infrastructure program
special consideration should be given to areas like
Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière and their economic
development.
A commuter train, while making Montreal more easily and
more directly accessible, would also give a fresh impetus to our
regional economy which, although very dynamic, needs it badly.
884
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of one of
our great traditional enterprises, our national railway system.
When we are considering the role of rail in any infrastructure
decisions, a real possibility in my riding of
Mission-Coquitlam, we must be aware of these facts:
A core rail network compliments the highway system as rail
serves as the prime mover of bulk resources and exports,
provides a commercial alternative to trucking, enables marine
and road intermodal links, provides infrastructure that can
continue to be user pay, reduces current and future liabilities for
public spending on transport infrastructure, and creates an
opportunity for partnership with governments to use available
rail corridors for intercity passengers and commuter rail transit.
For the environment rail means less congestion, less air
pollution, fewer accidents, less cost of injury, less noise and
more effective land use.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to remind you that February
is Heart and Stroke Month in Canada.
Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death,
disability and illness in our country. They claim 75,000 lives
each year.
These diseases cost our economy about $17 billion a year in
medical care, hospital costs as well as salary and productivity
losses.
[English]
The staggering total of this disease requires the development
of more effective prevention and intervention strategies. A
balanced approach is necessary where preventive practices are
incorporated early in life and communities are healthier places
to live.
[Translation]
I am sure that many of us have been personally affected by
cardiovascular diseases and that is why I support and thank the
organizations that work towards preventing and controlling
these diseases.
(1410 )
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians
that February 1 to 7 marks Eating Disorders Awareness Week.
The theme is: Breaking free-Celebrating our sizes.
The National Eating Disorder Centre and support groups
across Canada will address a key concern about weight
obsession and negative body image particularly among women.
The goal this year is to increase awareness of the psycho-social
factors which contribute to the development of anorexia,
bulimia, or weight preoccupation and those that prevent eating
disorders from occurring.
During the week, information through public forums and
exhibits will be provided to Canadians to dispel myths and
direct them to appropriate resources.
I am delighted that the messages of this week are consistent
with the actions of Health Canada to promote a sense of
well-being as well as healthy weights. Healthy bodies come in a
variety of shapes and sizes and a good weight is a healthy
weight, not just a low weight.
I would like to congratulate the National Eating Disorder
Centre for its work on raising awareness of this important health
matter.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker and members of
the House, I would like to take this opportunity to offer our
congratulations to the newly elected mayor of the city of Saint
John, Mr. Tom Higgins.
Mayor-elect Higgins brings to this position experience both
as a former city councillor and as a deputy mayor. Mr. Higgins is
a prominent educator and a dedicated community activist. We
all look forward to working very hard with our new mayor who
replaces our old friend who has hung up her skates to go to the
back benches of the mighty Conservative caucus.
On behalf of the government members from New Brunswick I
offer our sincere congratulations. We look forward to working
hard for Saint John with this very prominent New Brunswicker,
Mr. Higgins.
I also offer congratulations to Mr. Higgins on behalf of the
residents of Fundy-Royal.
885
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, three residents
of Otterburn Park in the federal riding of Chambly will represent
Canada at the snow sculpture competition in the arts and culture
section of the Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer, Norway,
between February 7 and 10.
These three Quebecers, Swavek, Peter and Mike Gorecki,
have already represented Canada in several international
competitions and many times won the public and the jury prizes
for their truly imposing works, often on historic themes.
But the Gorecki brothers are paying their own expenses to go
to take part in competitions on behalf of Canada, to promote the
art and culture of our country.
On behalf of the federal riding of Chambly and of Canada as a
whole, I want to wish the best of luck to the Gorecki brothers
who are leaving Quebec tomorrow, Friday, February 4, for
Lillehammer. I am confident that once again they will come
back from this competition with a trophy.
I also wish to express regret for the lack of support from
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to put forward a recommendation that will
contribute to a more open and improved process of reviewing
and determining the future of Canadian forces bases in Canada.
My proposal calls for the establishment of an ad hoc caucus of
MPs representing ridings in which CFBs are located for the
purpose of determining the future of these bases, whether they
be downsized, restructured or closed.
This caucus could be chaired by the minister and report its
findings to the government. This caucus could provide the
minister with the information and views from each base and its
community that he might not otherwise have the benefit of
receiving and would be shared and debated openly, resulting in
the best analysis and decisions possible.
It is important for the minister and his government to have
MPs, regardless of the future of their bases, as allies rather than
adversaries.
In short I believe that involving MPs in this decision-making
process will result in the best possible outcome for Canadian
forces bases in Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
have come across unusual evidence that ordinary Canadians no
longer support high taxation as a means of limiting the
consumption of cigarettes. I refer to the annual report of the
Non-Smokers' Rights Association which indicates an 80 per
cent decline in membership between 1992 and 1993.
Public support has so faltered for this anti-smoking lobby and
its affiliate, the Smoking and Health Action Foundation, that
four-fifths of their annual income of some $717,000 comes
from direct provincial and federal grants.
(1415 )
This group in urging that high taxes be retained on cigarettes
despite the deluge of contraband across our borders is not
speaking to the media for a significant number of members nor
for the majority of Canadians.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration on his announcement yesterday in the House of the
1994 immigration levels. His announcement is in keeping with
the pledge in the red book to maintain an immigration level of
approximately 1 per cent of Canada's population.
Immigrants bring a great many riches to our country. They
bring new skills and talents, expertise and experience. They
enrich our cultural diversity.
As an immigrant to Canada I had the opportunity to pursue a
career as an educator and to use my knowledge to the betterment
of our community.
By honouring our pledge in the red book the minister affirms
that immigrants have a lot to offer. I firmly believe that we need
their skills and talents to meet the economic challenges we face
as a country in an increasingly global society.
I wish the minister well as he embarks on a broad consultation
process on immigration policy. I offer my full support to him to
ensure the success of this initiative.
886
886
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
According to the daily newspaper Le Devoir, whose source
was a senior member of the RCMP, cigarette smuggling is only
the tip of the iceberg. Cigarette smuggling networks have now
expanded into jewelry, clothing and alcohol. In the Montreal
area alone, over two thirds of cigarette smugglers are also
dealing in alcohol.
Is the government aware that its carelessness, laxity and
negligence in the fight against cigarette smuggling are causing a
growing underground economy to spread dangerously?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said and I would like to repeat in this House that we are fully
aware of this situation. I contacted the provinces because the
federal government is not the only government involved in this
whole problem of the underground economy. We need an overall
plan and everyone's co-operation to deal with it.
I told the House yesterday that I had to engage in further
discussions with some of the premiers. I am planning to speak to
them early next week. And we have given very clear instructions
to the police to take all necessary measures to ensure that all
Canadians in all regions of the country obey the law.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, every question we ask now is answered with a litany of
calls, talks and intentions but never with action. We are starting
to wonder whether there is a government in the House.
An hon. member: There is none.
Mr. Bouchard: I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he
can confirm that the government's action plan against cigarette
smuggling includes a federal tax reduction of $6 a carton, as the
CBC reported last night?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in due time a statement on the whole problem will be made in
this House.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, if the Government of Ontario persists in its refusal to
reduce its own taxes, does the federal government intend to go
ahead with its own reduction of federal taxes, given the fact that
the Prime Minister said that some time ago?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
some days ago the hon. Leader of the Opposition told me that we
should proceed because he was convinced the Ontario minister
of finance had said in Montreal that he was to proceed. I was not
that sure.
Today we apparently have a different version. Yes, the hon.
member said himself in this House that after the meeting of the
ministers of finance in Montreal the Ontario minister of finance
had committed Ontario to cut taxes. That evidently was not the
case, if I believe what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is
saying today.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday,
the Solicitor General boasted that, in the last three months, the
RCMP had seized some 80,000 cartons of contraband cigarettes.
Had the minister done a simple calculation with the figures
quoted by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
he would have realized that in the last three months, while the
RCMP seized a truckload and a half of contraband cigarettes,
some 360 truckloads were smuggled into Canada. What a sieve!
Can the Solicitor General tell us, given the lack of results
achieved by the RCMP, what additional resources he intends to
give them to make them more effective?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add to the information I gave the House a few days
ago. In 1993, the RCMP made over 4,600 seizures and laid more
than 1,250 charges in Quebec alone. This is quite a respectable
record.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, just
yesterday the Prime Minister was asking for more information
before taking action, while the RCMP is now telling us that it is
very well informed, that cigarette smuggling networks are
branching out into luxury items such as clothing, jewelry and
alcohol. How can the Prime Minister explain that the RCMP is
not acting, except for political reasons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is well known that the RCMP is very independent and does its
job as the law requires. Any accusation to the effect that it has
political orders not to act is totally false. We have clearly
instructed the RCMP to take all necessary measures to stop this
smuggling.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
887
None of us in the House question the value and importance of
immigration, but legitimate questions exist concerning the
appropriate levels of immigration. As the minister knows, 2.3
million Canadians are either unemployed or underemployed, the
welfare rolls are bulging and governments cannot finance the
current level of social services.
Under these circumstances is the minister absolutely
convinced in his own mind that maintaining immigration levels
at the current level of 250,000 per year is in the national
interest?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we consulted Canadians in the last
election. One of the commitments we made in the red book was a
commitment to move our immigration policy toward a 1 per cent
level. That commitment was not undertaken lightly. That
commitment had the foresight of some study and analysis.
The Economic Council of Canada, for instance in its 1993
report, suggested moving toward 1 per cent and doing so
gradually. It also said that the net economic impact of every
immigrant is approximately $2,000. If we multiply that by the
levels we are looking at, it is half a million dollars only in the
calculation of net economic benefits to immigrants without
talking about job creation and entrepreneurship.
We feel it is a balanced approach. We talked about reuniting
families. We talked about bringing in skills that people in the
country need and the skills that our economies require, as well
as maintaining our international obligations toward those who
legitimately seek our refuge as they do across the country.
Yes, we believe it is a balanced approach and on balance will
help the country grow as former immigration movements have
done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his answer. In light of his answer can the
minister prove, by laying before the House a detailed cost
benefit analysis or other evidence, that maintaining
immigration at the level of 250,000 immigrants per year is a net
economic benefit to Canada?
(1425)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we tabled the immigration plan at
three o'clock yesterday. At one o'clock we briefed my
respective critics. At 12.28 yesterday on CP wire, without an
iota of a figure being deposited, his hon. critic for immigration
said the following:
Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high
unemployment, and many cannot read.
Before the hon. leader gets up and preaches and requests
analyses from this side of the House, I ask him to check with his
members so as not to suggest things that are not borne out in fact
but are more borne out in fiction and mythology.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: In the heat of exchange I know my colleagues
sometimes forget the Speaker. I know it is an oversight because
here I am. However I wish you would direct your responses and
your questions through me, please.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the minister.
If the minister were to be presented with studies that
maintaining immigration levels at the 250,000 level under
current circumstances does not produce a net economic benefit
to Canada, would the minister consider lowering the level?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, a number of studies have been
produced in terms of the relationship between net immigration
and net economic benefit. In fact, if I were to say something,
there probably would not be enough studies in the current time
to correlate those two forces a little more precisely.
I know the Reform Party has often used and basically
exclusively used the C. D. Howe report done by Daniel Stoffman
as a compass for suggesting that it should be reduced to 150,000.
Even in the C. D. Howe Institute report Mr. Stoffman concludes
that, at the very worst, net immigration is neutral on the
economic benefits that immigrants bring.
Compared to that we have the Economic Council of Canada
that shows a $2,000 net benefit. We have the report by Dr.
Rosalyn Kunin in 1991 who studied the economic impact of
business. Between 1986 and 1990 she concluded that 80,000
new direct jobs were created, a contribution during that time of
$3 billion to GDP.
I will conclude by saying that during that time 10 per cent of
all business activity-and I would be more than happy to table
this-across the country was created by business immigrants.
There are studies that prove immigrants are not a weight on the
country. We should be forging ahead with the knowledge that the
immigration policy adds dynamism to the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Part of the plan which
the media attribute to the government concerns health and an
awareness campaign directed at young people to discourage
them from smoking.
888
My question is for the Minister of Health. Can she tell us what
measures she is proposing to the government to make people,
especially young people, aware of the danger of smoking?
(1430)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, of
course I am working on various measures to deal with the
problem of tobacco use throughout Canada. I will tell her about
them as soon as we can, probably here in this House.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Health agree with the position of the Ontario
government, which systematically refuses to lower cigarette
taxes?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
health of Canadians across the country is a great concern to me,
but the health of Canadians living in the province of Quebec is
an even greater concern to me at this point because it has the
highest number of smokers.
We really must make sure that everything we do helps to
reduce the number of smokers across Canada, and especially in
Quebec, because the costs will be very high some time in the
future.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
The Government of Quebec has agreed to accept 40,000
immigrants this year, or about one-sixth of the total the minister
has announced he will admit to Canada. Quebec has one-quarter
of Canada's population. If we extrapolate the number of
immigrants Quebec believes it can absorb, the national figure
would be 160,000 immigrants.
Could the minister explain why the number of immigrants
Quebec believes it can absorb differs to such a large degree from
the number the minister thinks our country can absorb?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is
a Quebec-Canada immigration accord. Quebec has a selection
with respect to independent and business immigration.
Obviously it also assumes a family class and refugee class under
the federal guideline.
The hon. member's party is suggesting that the figure be
150,000. I know what you are against but I also want to know
what you are in favour of. If you want to cut 100,000
immigrants, as your party is advocating, I would like to know
where you are going to cut. Are you going to cut from the family
class since your party preaches-
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the minister will want to direct
his response to the Chair. It makes it much easier. Would the
hon. minister like to conclude.
Mr. Marchi: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through the Chair, I would
like to know-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. As I understand it this is a question and
answer period and we should try to set it up that way. I am sure
although there are many questions unasked we want to hear
both.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, has the minister consulted the other provinces in
determining the new immigration level, especially in light of
Quebec's decision to accept fewer immigrants?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in
preparation for the 1994 levels that we tabled yesterday all
provinces were consulted. Those consultations took place in
1993.
Not only were they consulted, but the member's own province
as late as last week faxed us a list of designated classes that the
business and economic communities of British Columbia would
like us to bring in as independents. We have done that.
Forty-four per cent of all immigrants in 1994 will be those
selected based on the skills that our economy needs.
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have
all requested certain trades and skills. We are trying to
co-operate with the provinces so that we as one slice of
immigration can have immigrants come to the country to fill
economic niches that the federal government has designated in
full co-operation with each and every single province.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A
little while ago in this House, we had a special debate on cruise
missiles on Canadian territory. The American government was
to receive an answer by the end of January.
Can the minister tell us if the government has made a
decision? What is he waiting for to let us know his position?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is correct that we had a very fruitful debate last
week. That discharged a commitment made by our party in
opposition
889
not to authorize any cruise missile tests in 1994 before the
House had a chance to debate the issue fully.
Members will know that in August 1993 the previous
government authorized the 1994 test and the planning was well
under way when we took office. Given this and given the fact
that we will be having foreign policy and defence reviews in the
next year where all matters including testing of weapons
systems can be debated, the government has decided to proceed
with the two tests in 1994 beginning this month.
I should also tell members that we have communicated this in
the last hour to the United States government. We have stressed
the fact that it should make no presumption about the outcome of
the defence and policy reviews Parliament will be seized of later
this year, given the very strong feelings on the matter of cruise
testing both within the country and certainly within our party.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, we must be glad that the government has finally made a
first decision after many days of consulting on various subjects.
We are waiting for one on cigarettes, if that appeals to you. You
are welcome.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs give us the details of
this agreement and table it in the House?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the hon. member was in the House a year ago. He should
know that the agreement was signed by the previous
Conservative government. It was renewed in 1993 and it does
provide for individual tests to be conducted bilaterally. The
actual tests can be agreed on or cancelled at any time within the
framework of that agreement.
All we are doing today is verbally acceding to the request of
the United States to have two more tests in 1994 in the same way
as we have had tests in the past nine years.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of immigration. The minister's
department is struggling with a backlog of more than 14,000
refugee claims from persons already in Canada. Social services
are also struggling with the flow of refugees, something the
minister acknowledged when he announced that refugee
claimants would be allowed to find work.
Why is the government increasing the number of refugees
Canada will admit when we are already unable to deal
compassionately with the current numbers?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, as part of our immigration levels
the government is committed to international obligations. The
member rises from his seat today, as he did yesterday, and
simply casts out of hand that we should not have had as many
refugees in the country or we should not honour obligations with
respect to allowing those individuals to have fair and speedy
hearings.
What we did yesterday not only maintained our obligations
under the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. We
have encouraged private communities to sponsor refugees, not
only because we believe there are more cost benefits in that they
absorb settlement costs but also because when communities
come forward prepared to accept refugees it is a celebration of
what the program is all about.
The hon. member also spoke about welfare rolls. We should
talk about facts as opposed to creating the perception and the
myth that every refugee who comes to the country goes on
welfare.
According to the Ontario government some 4 per cent of the
615,000 applications for social welfare assistance in Ontario
alone in 1993 were refugee claimants. Within that figure there is
some abuse this side is interested in, but I would urge the
member to set the context of his deliberations.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the minister on a related issue. The
Ontario government has already asked for an additional $110
million for immigrant programs. In response, the minister said:
``You have to be a realist. There are limited dollars available in
the pool''. Why does the minister not reduce the number of
immigrants until the government is able to properly support
these newcomers to Canada?
(1440)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with my provincial
counterparts in Ontario. For the first time the Ontario
government has signalled an interest in entering into a
federal-provincial agreement on immigration. Only three
provinces do not have current agreements.
The government has signalled its intention to accept the
request of the Ontario government and the Ontario government
has made a request for federal assistance for resettlement.
Unlike the former government, this government is prepared to
listen to Ontario's concerns. We will work with our provincial
partners as well as those at the municipal level on behalf of all
Canadians which is something the people want.
I simply said something that the hon. member and his party
have been saying every day. We have a fixed amount of dollars
available in the federal treasury. In fact, the member has made a
campaign of talking about deficit reduction. I thought I was
890
being responsible in not only addressing it purely from an
immigration viewpoint but also a fiscal one.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, the minister admitted that the government would
put parliamentarians before a fait accompli regarding the
appointment of the new CBC President, thus refusing to subject
this appointment to the approval of the House, and that is now a
done thing.
Since the government decided to impose its own choice, will
the minister undertake to give members of the parliamentary
committee on Canadian Heritage the list of candidates who
submitted their resume to Mrs. Collenette, the wife of the
Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, obviously, the hon. member and I disagree on how
appointments should be made. But I want to point out that the
appointment of a person is a rather confidential process. Many
candidates are eligible; many have a chance of being selected
for the job but, in the end, there can only be one appointment. In
my opinion, it would not be reasonable to publicly reveal the
names, and there are quite a few, of those who were not selected
for the position. Therefore, it is not my intention to make public
the list of those who could have got the position which was filled
today.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, to ensure greater transparency, the minister might
consider tabling this list to the committee, in camera.
I have a supplementary question. Since the minister refused to
consult the committee, will he at least tell this House what were
the true criteria used for the appointment of the new President?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, there is no such thing as true or false criteria. There are
only criteria, and the main ones were suggested by the CBC
itself, because these people know what they are doing and they
know how important such an appointment is.
We are quite willing to listen and, in fact, we did listen not
only to their advice but also to the advice provided by those who
take an interest in this issue. I already said that we had come up
with a long list, following an announcement in the Canada
Gazette, and I am pleased to repeat again that the president,
whom I want to congratulate, will gladly meet the parliamentary
committees interested in hearing him.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The European countries import millions of dollars of
Canadian fish and fish products every year. For the past two
years the government has been asking to have Canadian fish
products exempt from EC mandatory border inspections.
(1445)
Has the government made any progress in its efforts to
eliminate this restriction on access of Canadian fish products to
this important market?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question
and congratulate her on her first question in the House of
Commons.
I am pleased to reply to the hon. member that due to the efforts
of the Minister of Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
officials of my department I can announce today that the
European Community, after examining Canada's fish inspection
program, has agreed to exempt all Canadian fish products from
EC mandatory inspections.
This means that more than half a billion dollars worth of
Canadian fish products will now have completely unfettered
access to the European Community marketplace.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in response to this unexpected
question, I conclude by saying this is an early example of the
speedy manner in which this government is ensuring that more
jobs are created.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. I ask this question on
behalf of millions of Canadians including Mr. Norman
Henderson of Ottawa.
Given the horrendous cost to the health of Canadians, to our
over-burdened health care system caused by tobacco addiction,
and more deaths earlier than the combined total of traffic
accidents, drug abuse, murder, suicide and AIDS, will the
minister assure the House and the people of Canada that the
891
government will do everything in its power to discourage
smoking, particularly among the youth of Canada including the
maintenance of high prices. There is a proven relationship
between cigarette price and cigarette consumption.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
have had many discussions with my colleagues on this issue.
We are very concerned that the smuggling problem we are
facing now is seriously undermining years of policy building
that has resulted in a reduction in smoking among Canadians.
We are seeing an increase in smoking among young people
especially that is very troubling.
We must act to restore the reduction in smoking among the
Canadian population and any action this government takes will
take all of these factors into consideration.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
applaud the minister's strong representations within cabinet. I
would like to ask specifically if the minister has asked the
minister of revenue to ensure that tax policies will not be
fashioned to protect the tobacco industry or to cave in to law
breakers, that is to cave in to people who would break the law, or
to extract more taxes from people addicted already to cigarettes.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
also are very concerned with all aspects of the smuggling
problem and we are going to deal with it in a very forthright and
open manner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, following the
tainted blood scandal implicating the Canadian Red Cross
Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society wants all the
circumstances surrounding the contamination of several
hemophiliacs with the AIDS virus to be fully explained.
Will the Minister of Health tell us why she is trying to gag the
Canadian Hemophilia Society by limiting the financial
assistance needed by this organization to testify at the hearings
on the issue of tainted blood?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, we are very concerned by this issue, but the system
which was set up, namely the appointment of a judge and the
allocation of funds, had been decided by the previous
government. I can assure you that we are examining the issues
which concern the Canadian Hemophilia Society.
(1450)
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, am I to
understand that the Minister of Health recognizes that the
Canadian Hemophilia Society is the organization most directly
concerned by this issue and that, consequently, the minister will
immediately undertake to give it the necessary support so that it
can provide the best possible input at the hearings?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am aware the hearing into the tainted blood that will be managed
by Judge Krever is looking at asking for additional funds. The
question is being considered by Treasury Board at this time.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The results of two studies released by the National Cancer
Institute of the United States show that the incidence of colon
and rectal cancer is higher among smokers than non-smokers.
Also recent statistics show that lung cancer has now passed
breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths among
women.
Does the Department of Finance officially recognize the role
that cigarette smoking plays in the incidence of many cancers,
heart and lung disease and that proposed reductions in the tax on
cigarettes would increase both smoking and the incidence of
these diseases?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is under no
illusion as to the health effects of smoking. Whatever action we
take, as has been so well articulated by the Minister of Health,
will be taken with a view to mitigating those effects. The
government must make sure that smokers in this country
understand full well the dangers they are running in smoking
and that we will not allow Canadian health to be jeopardized.
Having said this, the only thing I would raise is the necessity
for some consistency of view. It was pointed out to me that the
member for Calgary North has expressed quite publicly her
support for a reduction in the taxes.
I might say to the leader of the Reform Party that some
consistency of view from that side of the House would certainly
help the Canadian people in understanding where his party is
coming from.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
In 1987 and 1988 the minister was on the board of directors of
Imasco which owns Imperial Tobacco.
I would like to ask the minister if he could assure this House
that his past association with Imasco-
The Speaker: The question is rather reaching back. Perhaps
the member could rephrase his question to bring it more up to
date.
892
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would
like to ask the Minister of Finance if he feels he will be able to
fairly consider the reintroduction of an export tax as the best
way to discourage both smoking and smuggling.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the
member's question, although I think that he himself ought to
feel a little ashamed in asking it.
The fact is that I was on the board of Imasco. I joined the
board. It is a company which is controlled from abroad. As a
strong Canadian nationalist I was asked to join because it was
very important that Canadians be represented on that board of
directors.
It is a company which is involved in a great number of
ventures within this country and is creating an enormous amount
of employment in many areas that have nothing to do with
tobacco. It also happens to be something that is in the private
sector which I thought his party was supposed to understand.
I would not have thought it necessary to stand up in this House
and say this. Let me try to say this very clearly and very calmly.
Many members have experience in a wide number of areas. One
of the tremendous things one would hope is that having all these
new members and the ability to create a new atmosphere is that
they bring that experience to this House. Some of them may well
have experience which conflicts with what the government is
doing and things the Canadian people want to see happen. But I
would never want to see any member stand in this House and say
that someone's experience or background prejudices his or her
decision.
(1455)
Let me state unequivocally that I will act in the interest of the
country in everything that I do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: And let that be a lesson to you.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Peace negotiations among the belligerents in Bosnia are to
resume in Geneva on February 10.
The United States is being asked by Britain and the United
Nations to take a more active role in negotiating a peace
settlement. The Russians have a key role to play as well.
Does the minister agree with the British foreign secretary,
Douglas Hurd, that the United States should be more active in
seeking a negotiated peace? Can he tell us what the Government
of Canada is doing to forge a common international approach?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, let me say that in the past few days I have spoken on the
telephone with my colleagues, the French foreign minister and
Secretary Hurd, and that in the next few hours I am to speak with
Warren Christopher, the American secretary. Of course we are
all trying now to make diplomatic efforts to bring the parties to
the conflict in the former Yugoslavia to make peace.
Regardless of what we may all try to do, it is up to the
belligerents themselves, first and foremost, to decide to make
peace. Only then can we reach the goals which have been set. I
also asked a small delegation of senior Canadian officials to
make a tour in the coming days to meet the UN authorities in the
field, to go to Geneva and also to the major capitals of the
countries whose troops are involved in peace operations in the
former Yugoslavia, in order to try to have a coherent, unified
policy on solving the continuing impasse over there.
* * *
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
today a journalist in
La Presse enlightened us about the horrible
overspending of the Canadian Senate. The Senate costs over $43
million a year, and it sat only 47 days last year, with an average
of 22 senators away each sitting day. In addition, we learned that
a senator had his floor raised, at taxpayers' expense, so that he
could better see the Parliament buildings through the window
from his chair.
The Speaker: Order! I think that we are not in the best
position to answer questions about what goes on in the other
place. Perhaps the hon. member could ask a question about the
House here, instead of about the other Chamber. If so, I will let
him continue.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister intend to intervene to end this waste and to let
this House study the budget of-
The Speaker: Order! I give the Right Hon. Prime Minister the
floor.
(1500)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
would be much nicer if the hon. member thought a little. If he
had voted for the Charlottetown Accord instead of fighting it,
we would have an elected Senate today, and the grievances
which he has today would not exist.
He should admit the mistake that he made last year. It is his
fault if we have an unelected Senate today. I think it would be
very useful to have an elected Senate in Canada. We tried to get
893
one in the past, but we do not think it is possible at this time
because no one in Canada wants us to discuss the Constitution.
The Speaker: I would prefer it if we asked questions about
this House instead of the other one. I might have decided that
perhaps the Prime Minister would not have to answer that
question. If the hon. member has a question about this House,
perhaps he could ask it?
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, does
the Prime Minister intend to cut the Senate's budget?
The Speaker: We shall go on to another question. The hon.
member for Yukon has the floor.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
It appears that the government is contemplating caving in and
lowering taxes on cigarettes regardless of the cost to the health
of Canadians and to the health care system. Since the
government is seriously contemplating this proposal, does it
mean that the government is now going to set tax policy based on
those who break the law rather than on those who make the law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the government has an obligation to use all means at this time to
ensure we destroy the racketeering that exists in the land
regarding cigarettes, alcohol and so on. We will act in order to
make sure contraband disappears in Canada for good and as
quickly as possible.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order in reference to a comment the minister of
immigration made in quoting from a Canadian wire press
release statement that lumped together several things that were
just touched on in my address yesterday to his statement. I
object to the minister's comment that I said these specific
things.
The Speaker: The hon. member is probably well within his
rights in the give and take of debate, but at this point I cannot see
a point of order. It would be a point of debate. I think we should
just progress from there.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, since we
now have this opportunity, I would like my colleague, the leader
of the government, to tell us about the business for the balance
of this week and next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
today we will continue the debate on the motion for social policy
review.
On Friday, as discussed with the opposition House leaders, we
will commence debate on second reading of the equalization
legislation. When that is completed we will deal with the
legislation respecting the implementation of the NAFTA side
accords.
On Monday we will have a debate on revitalization and
renewal of the rules of the House of Commons.
On Tuesday we will complete debate on the two bills I have
mentioned as well as the bill to merge the two wings of the
Department of National Revenue, with the idea of completing
debate on second reading of those three bills. Any votes that
would be required would be taken at six o'clock in the evening
on Tuesday.
(1505 )
We will discuss further the business we intend to call for the
balance of the week, but it is likely there will be one or more
opposition days.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, would the leader of
the government inform us about Wednesday's and Thursday's
business, because there had been some talk about Wednesday
being perhaps an Opposition Day.
[English]
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is very likely that Wednesday will
be an opposition day. I will confirm that with the member as
soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like to check
with the leader the agreement that we had regarding
consideration of Bill C-3 on Tuesday instead of Friday, since
Bills C-2 and C-4 will be considered on Friday. I would like him
to confirm if that is still the agreement.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right; that is still
the agreement.
894
894
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, as a new
member of Parliament it has been very interesting to uncover
many of the ideas and directions that seem to permeate
politically correct thinking on Parliament Hill and within the
news media. Yesterday was a classic example when the minister
of immigration stood in the House and told Canadians we were
going to be receiving an additional quarter million immigrants
in the next 12 months.
I suggest the expressions of concern around coffee tables or
living rooms last evening in the homes of many Canadians were
not reflected in the minister's quota. It was particularly
instructive yesterday when the immigration critic for the
Reform Party stood in the House. There were expressions of
humour and derision from some of the Liberal Party members
when he made the statement that the Reform Party was not
opposed to immigration.
We stand for a balanced approach to immigration based on
economic need and benefits to Canada. Clearly some of the
Liberal members have prejudged that the Reform Party is
anti-immigration and therefore found his statement humourous.
Of course the concept of prejudging is the root of the word
prejudice.
We all judge statements and actions by other individuals in
the light of our own experience or sometimes unfounded
assumptions. Perhaps an old line party like the Liberals should
take instruction from the fate of the other old line party which
was decimated in the most recent election.
I make these statements as a preamble to suggest that the old,
tired, worn out concepts which have led to a crisis in many
Canadian families relating to child care clearly have not been
successful. Perhaps government members would be well
advised to assume Reform Party MPs and the ordinary
Canadians who they represent share the same concerns that they
do.
We want what is in the best interest of Canada, for Canadians
and especially our nation's children. Do not prejudge our ideas
that may be interpreted in so-called code words, because I
choose to speak in clear, concise, simple English. There is no
other meaning that is contained in these clear, concise words.
The Reform Party supports child care programs that subsidize
financial need, not the method of child care chosen and that
subsidize children and parents, not institutions and
professionals. The Reform Party supports government
regulation of day care standards. The Reform Party opposes
state run day care.
(1510)
Reform Party policy is generated through a bottom up,
grassroots approach where hundreds of thousands plus of our
members have an opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to give
direction to their representatives in the House.
There are many Canadians who feel any government subsidies
or expenditures by government in support of child care must be
balanced and do away with a system that is complex, inequitable
and inadequate.
The Prime Minister in a year end interview with Maclean's
magazine stated:
Day care is an economic program as much as a social program, because if you
have a good system of day care you create more jobs. The people who want to
work will be able to do so and the people who take care of the children will have
new jobs.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the element of social
engineering that drives the economic considerations.
What about those parents who choose to stay home and excel
in the job of homemaker? Should we have a taxation and benefit
system in Canada that fundamentally forces parents out of their
homes? We support parents and those responsible for bringing
up children who choose to work outside the home. However I
submit we are the only party that equally supports parents who
choose the worthy vocation of working within the home as the
homemaker.
Following a thorough study I would visualize the Reform
Party supporting an increase in the per child personal tax
exemption and amending tax rates so that a single income family
earning $60,000 annually pays no more tax than a two income
family where each parent earns $30,000. This would work to use
the tax code to be fair to families that choose to have one income
earner rather than two.
Let me express some of the concerns to the House that some
Canadians have with respect to institutionalized child care.
They cite studies that show children put into day care at an early
age having difficulty forming affectionate and trusting
relationships later on. I am not stating that there is any
conclusive evidence of this, but I am stating it is a concern for
many Canadians. My own personal sentiment is that in the vast
majority of cases day care is, after all, a poor substitute for a
child's own mother or father.
To subsidize state run day care and not give equal subsidy to
families that choose alternatives is prejudicial and has the
potential of forcing children into a situation that many parents in
Canada reject.
We want to promote policies in which single parents who are
either forced to work or choose to work outside the home have
the option of entrusting the well-being of their children to other
family members or close friends. Should their situation not
895
receive equal subsidy? With government subsidy of only state
run day care Canada closes the option of parents exercising their
responsibility to choose what they judge best for themselves
and for their family.
We are very conscious of the tragic situations such as the
situation which has led to the Martensville trial in
Saskatchewan. We are aware that there are many other
circumstances wherein children are not being properly cared for
in unlicensed day care facilities. This is why I restate that the
Reform Party supports government regulation of day care
standards.
We are also concerned with the impact that unlicensed day
care has on the so-called underground economy where there is a
reward for not declaring income derived from what is
essentially an in-home business. We view with concern the
changes that the Conservative government brought to child
benefits and other social programs through what has been
described as a skilful exercise in the politics of stealth.
Without an informed and open public debate Canadian social
policy especially in the area of child care is wandering aimlessly
without thorough discussion, study or input from concerned
Canadians. It is important that members of the House go out of
their way to inform their constituents of details and background
on this and many other issues so that concerned Canadians will
be empowered to give meaningful input to the political process
and indeed to the direction of the government with respect to
family issues.
(1515 )
We must listen to our constituents because I believe that the
answers to these problems lie outside this Chamber and reside in
the homes of our citizens. Discussions in restaurants, coffee
shops, living rooms and around kitchen tables should be the
source of intelligent direction for this House.
In the government's order for today's debate it requested
broad consultation to analyse and make recommendations
regarding the modernization and structuring of Canada's social
security system with particular reference to the needs of
families with children.
As a Reform Party member I am speaking for the ordinary
Canadian whose voice is not normally heard in this Chamber or
indeed in front of standing committees. I believe there are
countless millions of Canadians who are not represented by the
vocal special interest groups. They reject the vision of child care
that includes state intrusion into the family. Social
responsibility, yes; social engineering, no.
Those voices are calling for a balanced system of taxation,
regulation and direction from the government which will treat
all Canadians, all families, all parents equally. They want social
engineering by the government terminated. It has been said, and
I agree, that a nation is no stronger than its most basic unit: the
family.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, first
of all let me congratulate the hon. member for his comments.
While I listened with great interest I was glad to see him in the
course of his remarks switch from the term day care to child
care. In fact as we well know the more relevant term that reflects
the reality of our society right now is child care. Many children
need that care at various times throughout the day and therefore
the traditional term is very much out of place. I was pleased to
hear him shift to the appropriate term.
That is simply not a matter of political correctness. It reflects
the reality in our society today and the fact that so many children
need care outside the home. I say unfortunately because I agree
with him that certainly a parent is the best provider of care for
one's child, if that is possible.
This leads me to my question. I wonder if the hon. member
would support a measure which would, through the Income Tax
Act, reflect a credit to a parent? Let us be candid. Usually that
would be the mother, but not necessarily always. Would the hon.
member support a measure which would give a tax credit to a
parent who, in fact, chooses to stay home and provide full-time
care for the child?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question I offer a qualified yes. I say that there must be a balance
so that there is the ability for parents to choose what is best for
their children. If in fact a child tax credit is the best way to go
about doing it or the measure that he had suggested is the best
way of going about doing it, I would support it but it is a
qualified yes.
My qualification is that at this point I do not believe nor do
any of the members of our party believe that the country is in a
position to actually take an action like that. If it was revenue
neutral I would suspect it would find support within our party.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, as a
working mom who has had two children in day care or child care
I really object to the tone of the hon. member when he seems to
suggest that my children have had an inferior upbringing. I
would like to attest to the fact that my children have proven
themselves to be admirable members of their community and
have contributed a great deal.
Could the hon. member please give us a precise definition of
what social engineering is?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, through our taxation system
frequently there are situations where it is beneficial for our
citizens to take particular actions. I cite as an example the
situation I mentioned in my speech where right now under our
taxation it works to a net benefit to a family to have two income
earners at
896
$30,000 rather than one income earner at $60,000 and yet the
gross income before taxation is equal.
(1520)
I suggest that kind of policy forces the situation where people
make choices. I am not suggesting for a second that the choice a
family may make when two people determine it is in their best
interests and the best interests of their family that there should
be two wage earners, that that is an inferior decision, not for a
minute. What I am suggesting is that by the taxation act as it
presently exists it works in a prejudicial manner against those
who choose to have one income earner.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a short comment. I do not think we have to oppose a
daycare system sponsored by the government and daycare
services at home.
Ideally, we should have a system whereby parents can choose
between two solutions according to their values and the
circumstances. I spent my whole life in education, and I can
confirm that for some children day care was very traumatic and a
source of serious problems. This might have nothing to do with
the daycare operation itself, but could be linked to the lack of
resources. Clearly, daycare centres do not always offer the
quality of service they should. I believe that parents who do not
want to send their children to daycare centres should have a
choice, although it remains to be determined whether this choice
should carry with it social benefits. I think this would be a proof
of respect for the parents' values.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe this is a question. Does
the hon. member wish to comment?
[English]
Mr. Adams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me
that immediately before Question Period the member for
Kitchener spoke and if I heard correctly the person in the Chair
at that time said there would be an opportunity for five minutes
of commentary and questions on his remarks.
I wonder if that is the case.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for raising that point. In
fact I am told that the member you just spoke of was not in his
seat at two o'clock. Therefore his 10 minutes of comments or
questions expired because he was not here.
Other members might wish to know this too. If you do not
show up, you do not get your questions and comments.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are proud of the social programs we have built
together. We are proud of our sense of fairness and justice. We
care when people are unemployed. We care when people are
poor. Together we have built social programs which are the envy
of the world, from medicare to the old age pension.
We Canadians are also proud of our common sense. Today
common sense tells us that we must rebuild and improve our
social programs to meet the new needs and challenges of the
1990s.
We need to reform and strengthen our social system so that we
can provide all Canadians with a fair chance to seize the
opportunities of the 21st century.
[Translation]
The Liberal Party was the architect of major social reforms in
this country. With the assistance and the proposals of all
Canadians, the new Liberal government intends to pursue its
social work.
We cannot allow nor do we want to allow past successes to
prevent us from seeing the need for change. Our goal is to
change our income support programs without threatening our
values of fairness and compassion.
[English]
In the past we have created programs which have substantially
reduced poverty among senior citizens. Now we must forge
creative programs to reduce the poverty among children. There
is really something wrong when in a country as wealthy as
Canada over one million Canadian children use food banks
every year.
(1525)
We know that when children live in poverty they get sick more
frequently, they do worse in school, they have fewer chances to
succeed. We owe it to our children to ensure that all of them have
a chance to succeed in life. That is why I welcomed the
announcement by the Minister of Human Resources
Development that Parliament will hold immediate, wide ranging
and open public hearings on reforming Canada's social system.
The task before us is mammoth but we owe it to Canada's
children to succeed. We need the wisdom and the input of as
many Canadians as possible and that is why these public
hearings are so vital.
Just as we must act to confront the problems of children living
in poverty, so we must act to confront the problems of teenagers
who drop out of high school. In the last three years alone the
number of jobs held by high school dropouts has decreased by
17.2 per cent. We cannot leave these young people permanently
stuck on a dead end street. We need to rethink our apprenticeship
programs. We need to rethink our training programs. We need to
give young Canadians a chance.
The government's plan to introduce the youth service corps is
an excellent start, but we acknowledge that it is only a start. We
need to find new ways of guaranteeing that young Canadians
897
have both basic reading and math skills and also the skills they
will need in the knowledge-based industries of the future.
The bottom line is that we have to provide young Canadians
with the skills to get off and stay off social assistance. That is the
right thing to do both ethically and economically.
As we consider the realities of the 1990s we must remember
the plight of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost
their jobs during the recent recession. There are so many decent,
hard-working people who have lost their jobs as a result of
massive layoffs. These are Canadians who have been robbed of
their dignity through no fault of their own.
We must consider during our public hearings what new hope,
what new help, what new training we can provide for older
workers who have lost their jobs. How can we help these older
workers regain their dignity?
I am not talking about doing favours for people. I am talking
about making sure that we tap the talents of all Canadians and
allow all Canadians to play a role in building a vibrant and
prosperous society.
As we think together about how to improve Canada's social
programs during changing times, we must focus on the reality
that Canada's population is aging. How do we cope with this new
reality? More important, how do we enable senior citizens to
remain active and independent members of society? How do we
start tapping the invaluable resources that senior citizens
provide?
One answer to all these problems is to say that it is just too
bad. It is too bad that some kids are poor. It is too bad that a lot of
teenagers have dropped out. It is too bad that older workers have
no prospects. It is too bad that senior citizens are kept from
making a contribution. That is one response, but it is not the
Liberal answer and I do not think it is the Canadian answer.
[Translation]
Canadians will solve these problems. We are really concerned
with social programs and Canadians will be very happy to have
the opportunity to express themselves during these public
consultations.
[English]
Canadians who are in dire financial straits need help to
survive. They also need help to get off and stay off social
assistance. Part of the solution lies in greater job creation and
the government has already indicated its commitment to this
end.
Another part of the solution lies in redesigning our social
programs so that Canadians are equipped to fill those new jobs.
(1530 )
In the months and years ahead all of us must work together to
reform our social programs so that we can end poverty in this
country.
The lessons of the great depression led a Liberal government
to introduce unemployment insurance. The need to fuel a
post-war economy led a Liberal government to introduce family
allowance. The need to offer more people a chance at higher
education led a Liberal government to introduce Canada's
student loans.
The Liberal government of today is prepared to meet the
social needs of the present from child poverty to opportunities
for our youth, to laid off workers, to an aging population. We
want to strengthen our social system and we want to include the
Canadian public in the process.
We believe that the healthiest changes, the best changes, are
made when Canadians agree to the changes together.
I look forward to the public hearings on these vital issues in
my own riding of Hamilton Mountain and I look forward to
hearing the views of Canadians right across our land.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting in the dialogue between political parties that we
always seem to end up at the same point.
During the course of this election it was very interesting to me
that the Liberal candidate in my riding went out of his way to
make sure that people in our constituency felt comfortable with
the fact that the Liberal government would not do anything, or
had no plans with respect to social programs. We may recall very
briefly that during the course of the election the former Prime
Minister with the summer job also was really taken on in the
area when she suggested that there might be some look at or
revision of social programs.
I wonder if the member might not agree that it would have
been helpful to the Canadian public if they had been made aware
that in fact the Liberals when they became government were
going to be doing a complete review; if it might not have been
helpful for them to make a judgment based on what appears to
have been a predetermined plan.
I suggest that there has been a situation in Canada during this
election process where our party told the Canadian people about
our plans, though they may be open to question, and that the
social program had to be looked at if it was going to be
maintained.
Ms. Phinney: I am surprised that perhaps the hon. member
has not read the red book. I thought everybody had read the red
book by now. All the way through that red book it explains that
we were going to keep the social net; that there would be nobody
falling through it; that we would make sure all the protection
that has been there in the past will be there in the future, but that
there will be changes. There would be consultation. We would
bring Canadians in to allow them to express what they felt about
the programs and the state that they are in.
898
I agree with you that the response by the former Prime
Minister-and we can appreciate why she is not the Prime
Minister now-felt that there was not enough time during the
campaign to talk about what she had to say about the social
programs. Probably that was more because she did not have
anything to say about the social programs rather than because
there was not enough time.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Hamilton Mountain
has placed such an emphasis on youth as well as our studying of
the social programs. I think that is very important.
We know our youth has an unemployment rate of about 20 per
cent right now and we know that in the future career changes for
youth will be four to five significant career changes. These are
real career changes. These are not simply moving up the ladder
or sideways, or into something a little bit different. This will be
totally different career changes.
(1535 )
This is a really different world and we are all very much aware
of that. It is absolutely imperative that we look at all groups but
youth is our future. That is why I am particularly pleased that the
member for Hamilton Mountain did place such an emphasis on
youth.
My question has to do with the apprenticeship program that
the red book, now famous of course, talks about. We know that
an apprenticeship program is extremely positive and it is a good
way to go.
It is my belief from the background that I have had it is really
important that when we implement an apprenticeship program
we bring in all partners: labour, business, industry as well as
education.
Therefore I am wondering if the member for Hamilton
Mountain could comment on that and the importance of making
sure that those groups are not forgotten.
Ms. Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perfectly
right.
The apprenticeship programs are very important. We have
seen in other countries how much this can contribute to the
future of individual youth and also to the country.
One of the problems in the past is that all the people involved
in the apprenticeship programs were not consulted, in particular
on the needs in a community. Before people were registered in
an apprenticeship program or by the time they got through a year
and a half of it they realized that they were never going to get a
job when they finished the program. They quit and the drop-out
rate was about half.
What we are planning to do now is to make sure that those
groups, including labour, are consulted and that the courses we
offer for apprenticeship programs will mean that youth
afterwards can get a job.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to rise and speak on
the floor.
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I look
forward to working with you. I would like to congratulate
everyone here for being elected. Obviously constituents felt that
members were worthy of that trust and have sent them here.
I would like to apologize to the members across the floor from
the Bloc Quebec for not speaking to them in French. It is a sign
of respect. I am afraid I do not have the confidence quite yet to
attempt to do it. Never mind, I will be doing it soon.
My riding is Vancouver Centre. I do not want to go into the
geographical and regional description of Vancouver Centre.
What I want to tell members about Vancouver Centre is that it is
a microcosm of Canada.
Vancouver Centre represents on the one hand some of the
wealthiest people in this country. On the other hand, it
represents people who live in abject poverty in one-room hotels
in the middle of the riding. I therefore feel that I can speak with
some authority on the problems that we are facing today in terms
of our economic and social problems.
The reason I lump both of those into one is that they are not
single problems. We cannot in any way remove or separate the
problem of economic disorder that we have in our country from
the problem of looking at our social programs. They are totally
and completely interdependent.
A strong social program-I do not like to use the words safety
net-a strong sense of social responsibility is very important if
we are to look at economic growth. Unemployment has a major
impact on our ability to gain revenue. Unemployment drains our
coffers of money that we pay for unemployment insurance.
When unemployment insurance expires, our coffers are
further drained by helping people who are on welfare. On the
other hand, if we have people working and contributing they
contribute to the wealth of this country not only economically
but in terms of their self-esteem.
I am a family physician and I have yet to meet, in fact the
number of people I know is very small who want to stay on
welfare and who want to be unemployed. People want to work. It
has everything to do not just with money but with self-esteem, a
sense of self-worth and a sense of contributing to the growth and
future of our country. This is why we cannot separate these two
issues.
I would like to speak to the motion because I believe that the
motion made by the hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development is a very important one. I do not understand how
we
899
could be debating it at all. We should all be saying that we agree
with it.
Really all the motion is asking is for us to look at ways in
which we could change, modernize and up-date our social
system. This needs to happen. We cannot have an inflexible
system. We are moving into the 21st century. Our needs have
changed. Our economic way of living has changed. We need to
look at how we do things to make them not only more efficient
but more applicable to the needs of the people and more cost
effective.
(1540)
It does not mean that we are talking about cutting programs.
We are talking about making them more efficient. The minister
has invited not only all of the members across the floor in both
opposition parties, but he has invited the people of Canada, the
provinces, the municipalities and non-governmental
organizations to work together to find that common ground.
It is not a coincidence that the Liberal Party was elected with a
specific mandate to find that common ground. Nor is it a
coincidence that when we put our red book forward it contained
a total package of a plan for the future of this country. It is in fact
because of a strong Liberal tradition and heritage that the
Liberal Party has recognized the need for a socially responsible
society.
Socially responsible means allowing people the dignity of
working, as the Prime Minister has said so often, and allowing
them to do so by giving them the skills to enable them to get to
that position.
There are always going to be people in our country who will
not be able to realize their full potential by working. We will
always have among us people who will be disabled in some way.
That is the social safety net. However the ability to bring people
into realizing their full potential is the Liberal way. That is what
this motion does.
This motion speaks to making our system more applicable and
more able to move us further into the 21st century so that
Canadians can become strongly independent people,
recognizing their full potential and able to contribute to this
country. That is all the motion states.
The debates I hear are pre-empting the results of that kind of
consultation around this country. They have pre-empted it. That
is one of the problems that people have always had with our
political system. We have never allowed a process of
consultation to work. We sit and indulge in rhetoric. We score
points on each other by trying to say that this is what we are
going to be doing and what we are not going to be doing.
The motion is clear. It asks for our co-operation and our
commitment to looking at how we change our system. It asks no
more than that. It is a promise that the Liberal government
made. It is a promise in the red book. Everyone has heard about
the red book. It is not a magic book. It has not some wondrous
tone that one has to have a Ph.D. in literature to understand. It is
a simple articulation of the core value of the Canadian people,
which is what we and our Prime Minister seem to have been able
to articulate very well.
It has been two years in the making. We consulted not just
with Liberals but with people all across the country and around
the world regardless of their political stripe. We brought them in
to talk about the need for change, to look at not changing the
bottom line, which is a strong sense of fiscal discipline together
with social responsibility, but how we can do that differently.
It is obvious that the old ways have not worked. It is obvious
that the solutions we used in the past were useless. We are
saying: ``Let us work together to change this, to make it
different''.
I do not even know why we are debating this motion, hon.
colleagues across the floor and within my own party. It is
obvious to me that it is the only course of action we must take.
What I would like to ask of members instead is that they come
together with us in this endeavour, that they co-operate, that
they help to consult and that they help to make the difference.
People have elected us for change. They have elected all of us,
the Reform Party and the Liberal Party across Canada, to help
move this country forward so that we can be globally
competitive and that our individual Canadians can be
independent. That is what we would like members to do. Let us
do it together so that we can create a country that we can all,
regardless of our political stripe, be proud of.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the member for Vancouver Centre. The Liberal
Party had nine years in opposition to consult and we received
this little red book. What does the member think the Liberal
government can do in nine months? It is not time for a decision.
(1545)
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the
member's question very well. He said that the Liberal
government has had nine years to consult. Is that the question?
The Liberal government has been in opposition for the last
nine years. It has not been a position to set the course for this
country. Now that the Liberals are in government it has taken the
bull by the horns. We have not sat around and gazed at our navel.
We have decided on a plan of action. Let us get on with it. There
is a time line to this. We promised to follow a specific time line
and we are going to do it. A report will be ready by September
1994 and we are saying, help us to do it.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I was
delighted by the comments of the hon. member.
900
What I am about to say is not a challenge to the member in the
least. She made a statement about lumping social policy and
economics together. Indeed they are an interdependent
coupling.
My concern is the rhetorical piece that is the red book for me
does not have the economic elements within it that satisfy what
we must do for Canadians to get them back to work.
My daughter is 22 years old and does not have a job, although
she has a university education. She says: ``Mom, please do not
come back home and say you can do nothing''. It is the rhetoric
that is my concern. If we are going to co-operate it is incumbent
upon us to look at economic policies and marry that with social
policy. That is how I hope we can co-operate in this House.
In my view the debate has helped to push us along that path.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the hon.
member and I have much in common. I have a 25 year old who
has a university education and not able to find work either. We
have all come here with the same bottom line. We are all looking
for the same things.
I do take exception to the fact that the hon. member said the
red book is long on rhetoric. The red book is very long on
specifics. These are the plans of action into which we are now
moving. The immigration plan is clearly set out the red book;
our economy plan is clearly set out in the red book and our social
policy is clearly set out the red book.
She has asked that we marry the two and look at a way to bring
them together. That is precisely what this motion speaks to.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, reading, writing and understanding even a very simple
text is still a problem for many of our fellow citizens. The
problem is even worse for the illiterate and has a negative
impact on the development of our society as a whole. In my
speech I would like to expand on the various aspects of this
problem.
In this country, one adult out of four can neither read nor write
sufficiently well to meet the requirements of daily life. It may
seem hard to understand that in 1994, this kind of problem
exists, even among young people, since schooling has been
compulsory for more than 50 years. In fact, today, a whole
generation is paying the price of the school reforms that took
place in the 60s.
However, schools are not the only culprits. The current trend
towards family dislocation is also to blame. Well-known
authors have stressed the major impact of the family
environment on the child's ability to learn to read and write.
Finally, the private sector has not played the role assumed by
its counterparts in other industrialized countries. Seventy-six
per cent of Canadian businesses with more than 50 employees in
Canada have no policy for training human resources.
And last but not least, there is the federal government's
responsibility regarding the high rate of illiteracy in Canada.
I would like to start by commenting on the negative impact of
federal involvement in this area.
(1550)
I condemn the almost inevitable inefficiency of a policy
where responsibilities and resources must be shared, discussed
and fought over by two levels of government: one which has
legal jurisdiction over this area, in other words, the provinces,
and the other which for years has insisted on invading this area
of responsibility in a totally illogical way which also has been
very detrimental to our financial resources. This is typical of the
federal government.
Ottawa's failure to support literacy in this country includes
the poor allocation of federal resources as a result of
jurisdictional overlap.
The hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually as a
result of this overlap could have been used, for instance, to
create a pre-school network similar to those that exist in many
western countries. The positive correlation between early
socialization of children and academic achievement has been
stressed repeatedly. As the Deputy Prime Minister said last
Tuesday, the years between zero and five are critical.
With the money saved, Quebec, if it had a free hand, would
have been better able to help organizations engaged in literacy
training and occupational training.
In my own riding, for instance, we have a regional adult
education and occupational training service provided by the
Sainte-Thérèse, Deux-Montagnes et Saint-Eustache school
boards. Their budget has just been cut by 13 per cent, despite the
magnificent job they are doing.
Changes in the family structure, as I said before, are also
responsible for illiteracy. But does Ottawa do enough to adapt to
these new structures? To working mothers? To single-parent
families? What is the federal government doing to create a
genuine daycare network, as an alternative to pre-school
establishments? The private sector is not doing enough? That is
pretty obvious. But is there not a case for giving them better
incentives to do their share in retraining manpower?
In any case, looking for scapegoats is not going to solve the
problem. It is high time to put in place what is needed to fight
illiteracy.
Need we recall why action is urgently needed; and why
illiteracy is a scourge? First of all, illiteracy cuts people off from
their culture. That is clear. Knowing how to read and write is the
901
key everyone needs to open that door, and the illiterate person
who does not have that key cannot enter that world.
Second, there are the practical requirements of daily life in
our society which include a minimum knowledge of reading and
writing. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue, and it is too
bad he is not here, would be very upset if we were not capable of
completing our income tax returns and then writing him a
cheque. You have to be able to read and write to do that. We also
have to be able to read our contracts, bills, and so forth. Need I
go on?
Finally, and this is a particularly urgent question today, there
is the matter of getting a job. Illiteracy has always been a
handicap in this respect. It has barred individuals from the better
jobs. Today, the consequences are far worse. In today's society,
occupational skills, including literacy, are no longer a guarantee
for getting a good job. They are an absolute requirement for any
job at all.
Two-thirds of the jobs created by the year 2000 will require at
least grade twelve. This means that illiteracy wastes part of our
human resources. It undermines our economic development and
diminishes our competitive position vis-à-vis countries that are
more concerned than we are about the training of their labour
force.
In accounting terms, providing sufficient funding to fight
illiteracy today is a good investment for the government because
it means fewer welfare recipients and a broader tax base
tomorrow.
To get a maximum return on this investment, how it is used
should be determined locally. Aside from the fact that it is pretty
useless to have an army of officials in Ottawa make general,
high-sounding statements, it also does not make sense and it is
counterproductive in the extreme to claim there should be
common standards for a literacy policy from coast to coast, for
Canada and Quebec.
(1555)
Who could claim, unless it is for partisan reasons, that it is not
in Quebec, with its distinct culture, that such a policy should be
implemented if we are looking for efficiency and not electoral
visibility for the federal government.
The best way to avoid overlapping is for the federal
government to withdraw from that field. To come closer to that
ideal situation, Quebec and Ottawa should at least sign that
agreement giving Quebec control in that area.
To conclude, I would like to congratulate the hon. Deputy
Prime Minister for the pathetic plea for the unemployed she
made on Monday. She said that our society was sick with
unemployment and that one of the causes of the disease was the
lack of training of part of the population. I agree with that, but
what I do not agree with is the method she proposes to find and
then apply the treatment capable of curing society of
unemployment.
For Quebec, she says, the disease could be beaten if the two
doctors, Quebec and Ottawa, would stop quarrelling, would
agree on a treatment and would apply it together. Ever since
Molière wrote his play, we know what happens when one or
more physicians are called to the bedside of a patient: the fees
are high and the funeral director is never far behind.
What we propose is that the Ottawa doctor leave promptly,
before it is too late, and leave the patient in the hands of his
Quebec colleague who, being closer to the patient, is in a better
position to treat him efficiently.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed very much the remarks of the hon. member. I want to
make one observation.
I believe that education is within provincial jurisdiction in
Canada. I would have thought to some degree the problems in
education that pertain to illiteracy and difficulties in reading
have to do with the quality of instruction at the provincial level
whether it be in Quebec, Ontario or any other province.
Therefore I ask the hon. member if he supports national
standards in education as a way to confront this problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the question that was
just asked is extremely interesting. Would it be appropriate to
have common standards? And I presume that the hon. member is
wondering whether it would be useful to have the same
education standards from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
My answer is no. Of course, there are some common
principles but, as I was saying, beyond the virtuous general
statements to the effect that education must be aimed at
educating and that the language must be good and so on, I do no
see the need for Vancouver and Quebec to have the same
objectives. I am still saying that it is not necessary for Quebec's
education goals to be established in Ottawa.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
as this is my first official speech in this House, I would like, with
your permission, to congratulate all members on their election
and congratulate you on your appointment to this responsible
position.
I would also like to thank the voters of Brome-Missisquoi
from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me and
electing me as their representative. Brome-Missisquoi is a
lovely riding in Quebec's Eastern Townships. It has both an
urban and a rural mix and tourism, farming and industry are the
dominant areas of activity.
902
The Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister
of Western Economic Diversification has informed us that he
intends to hold broad public consultations on social program
reform. The government has given itself two years to review
social programs and make changes in a manner which, as it
promised repeatedly during the election campaign, takes into
account the concerns of the people.
(1600)
Many Quebecers and Canadians are afraid of what the
government has in mind for social programs. They are afraid
that the government, under the pretext of getting public finances
in order, will slash the only social safety net they have.
The upcoming social program review scares many
disadvantaged people and those who are suffering because of the
sluggish economic recovery. It scares unemployed persons,
welfare recipients, low and middle income families, senior
citizens and, of course, disabled persons.
All of these people are currently facing a great deal of
uncertainty as to the availability of quality occupational training
to help them integrate the labour force and gain access to the
health care and social services they desperately need.
According to the Office des personnes handicapées du
Québec, in 1986, there were ten times as many disabled persons
living in a residential setting as there were disabled persons in
an institutional setting. More than one third of the population
over the age of 75 is considered disabled and overall, there are
more women than men who are disabled.
The challenge facing the government is, therefore, complex.
On one hand, all Quebecers and Canadians want the government
to tackle the employment problem. Citizens who want to use
their skills and experience to make a contribution to society find
nothing noble about unemployment and welfare. Finding work
is a priority for disabled persons, particularly for those not
confined to an institution because of their disability.
Disabled persons often encounter obstacles such as
discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. Yet, many
disabled persons are highly qualified and functional. Why not
call upon these individuals who want to participate in the
economic development and modernization of Quebec and
Canada.
Disabled persons also face problems in other areas such as
training, transportation, communications and housing, areas in
which most Canadians take fairness for granted.
Most of these areas come under provincial jurisdiction and we
believe that the federal government has no business interfering
any more than it now does in such matters. We think that the
money allocated by the federal government to these programs
for the handicapped must be transferred to the provinces, which
are a lot closer to the needs of their population.
We think there is an increasingly urgent need for Quebec to
create institutions that unite us, based on our needs and not on
standards imposed by the rest of Canada that do not always take
into account our economic, cultural and social situation. The
duplication and overlap problem is costly and so complex that
the average person is easily lost. The competition among
governments on service quantity but not quality has resulted in
waste, the rule being that the federal government takes up as
much room as possible without regard for costs.
Cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for health care may
translate into budget cuts in home-care and rehabilitation
centers.
(1605)
Quebec and the other provinces will be forced to slash their
health care services. The government must not be allowed to
make the provinces bear the burden of its deficit and shoulder
the blame for these cuts.
The lack of funds in the health care system affects non only
the availability of occupational therapy and physiotherapy
services but also the home support program for people with
disabilities.
Are we to think that cuts to social programs will lead to a
reduction in efforts to make public buildings accessible to
people using wheelchairs since, as the humorist Jean-Marc
Parent was saying, there are always doors that open on the wrong
side and 90 degree access ramps?
Despite their significant presence in our society, there is still
too little research on the social integration of people with
handicaps or functional disabilities. While we are scraping the
bottom of the barrel to offer concrete and direct services to the
population, can we afford to have two of everything? In
1993-94, the overall administration of federal and provincial
health and welfare programs accounts for over $150 million and
more than 1,500 full-time jobs.
Can we afford to duplicate initiatives aimed at target groups
with occasionally conflicting priorities? These are areas of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction and the federal government is
merely trying to raise its political profile.
In 1991, only $46 million was spent on programs for the
handicapped over five years or a little over $9 million a year.
According to Statistics Canada, between 12 and 13 per cent of
Canadians have various disabilities; it may be a mobility
impairment, a vision, hearing or speech problem, an intellectual
deficiency or a mental illness. As the figures clearly show, the
time and energy spent on duplicating programs for the
handicapped are not only costing us a lot of money but also
lowering
903
the quality of services offered to these people. This is further
evidence that Quebec's sovereignty is the only valid solution to
this administrative nightmare.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Sir, may I offer my
congratulations on your attaining the position of Deputy
Speaker.
The minister's initiative in the area of social services is
certainly much overdue and much needed in this country and
gives us all cause as Canadians for serious reflection about what
really is the role of government, or what ought to be the role of
government in our society as we move toward the 21st century.
A conservative would have us believe that government should
do very little, that really everything should be left to the
marketplace, that just like business and the market take care of
everything and those who earn, wealth will trickle down to those
who do not have such wealth and that everything will be
wonderful in our society; so-called Reaganomics, if you will, or
the path followed by Margaret Thatcher and by the previous
government in this House.
It is quite obvious that such an approach to government in
society has been a miserable failure. Never has the gap between
those at the top, those who have, and those at the bottom
widened more significantly in such a few short years as it did in
the 1980s in North America and in Britain and other parts of the
world.
(1610 )
It is quite obvious that the conservative philosophy is quite
bankrupt as we move toward the end of this century and the start
of a new era.
On the other hand, we have the socialist philosophy that
government should do everything for us. It should take care of
us from the cradle to the grave. There is very little that the
citizen should have to do. Let government do it all. That has
been tried in different parts of the world with very limited
successes, producing such an incredible tax burden on countries
that they have had to totally rethink the way their society is
structured. It has produced a paternalistic society in which all
too often the initiative of the individual is stifled almost
completely to the point at which they simply feel that they are a
ward of the state.
Between these two extremes of the far right and the far left
you have what I feel, and history has proven it to be the sensible
position, is the position of a liberal; a far more balanced
position, founded on the ideas of some of the greatest thinkers of
political science in history.
A liberal view espouses the fact that there is a social contract
or that there ought to be in a society a social contract between
the citizen and the state, that the state is there and gains power
through the actions of the citizenry in giving that power
temporarily to the state. The duty of government is to assist the
citizen to realize his or her full potentials, then to work in
partnership with the private sector and to let that citizen and the
private sector work together for job employment, job creation
and so on. To a large extent it is the private sector which will
help to foster employment in a society.
A liberal rejects the notion that there is no role for
government to play whatsoever. That is simply not a view that I
can find acceptable. The lessons of history are that there must be
a role for government.
In this debate about the reform of social security let me quote
perhaps one of the best expressions of the role of government
that I have come across in my life time. It comes from Hubert H.
Humphrey, a former vice-president of the United States. There
are some lessons we can learn from our American friends.
Perhaps there are many they can learn from us as well.
Mr. Humphrey said the moral test of government is how it
treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who
are in twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows
of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped''.
Surely that is the kind of test we want to put before any
government as Canadians. That is the kind of test that this
current government is quite prepared to stand up and meet in its
mandate over the next four or five years. The minister's
initiative in this reform of social security is a very clear
testament to that.
On this side of the House and in Canada in general there are
those who say the Liberal Party should refrain from using the
word reform since it is the label of one of the current parties in
the House. I categorically reject that. The real reformers in this
House are those members on this side who are true to their
liberal principles. That is who the real reformers are.
I will never stop using the word reform because it is a word
which history has shown to be a liberal word. The liberals on this
side of the House are proud to be members of the Liberal Party
and we intend to continue to have our voices heard within in our
own caucus, within this House and within this country to make
sure that our views are put forward with the views of Canadians
all across this country who share the fact that there must be a
role for government to play.
What are the areas of reform that need to be examined in our
current look at these particular problems? The unemployment
crisis we face, if not the most serious situation, is right near the
top of the list. Never have so many suffered so much in such a
few short years in terms of job loss. Not since the days of the
great depression. We simply must attack that and do everything
we can as a government and as a nation to get Canadians
working again.
904
(1615)
The best kind of social reform we could come up with is a
program of job creation. It was quite clear in the election
campaign which party was the only one prepared to speak
consistently, day in and day out, about jobs for Canadians. On
October 25 we saw reflected the result that Canadians
understood who was prepared to address the real concern, the
unemployment crisis.
In terms of attitude in society, unfortunately we have drifted
into a situation where there are far too many Canadians who
seem to be accepting unemployment insurance and welfare as a
way of life. I like to believe and I do believe they are a minority.
Frankly I know, coming from a municipal councillor
background, that some people are prepared to accept it as a way
of life for themselves. We cannot allow that attitude to continue.
That is not to condemn the unemployed. Far from it. I would
be the last to do that. In fact I submit that most unemployed
Canadians truly want to work, but we need an attitudinal shift
which has to be led by the government. We must insist that
people who are willing and able to do work but unable to find
work are given some gainful employment, some meaningful role
to play. We will help them over the short-term crises they face
until they are able to find full-time employment on their own.
Whether that will evolve into some kind of guaranteed annual
income or some system of workfare I am not sure, but I know
very clearly from my experience that we cannot encourage and
let continue the attitude that one can just stay at home and be
supported by the taxpayer. That has to be discouraged in the very
small minority of people who unfortunately have that attitude.
I would like to say a word about the co-ordination of social
programs. As I mentioned my own previous experience was at
the municipal level. It is all too clear to those of us who come
from a background in municipal government that there has been
a consistent downloading of responsibility from the federal
government to the provincial government and then down to the
municipalities that have nowhere to pass it on to except to local
property ratepayers. It is simply wrong and unconscionable that
should go on.
Quite frankly the redistribution of income should be handled
by the senior levels of government, by the federal and provincial
governments. That is a far more just situation for the clients of
the system, for the people who need assistance. It is far fairer for
them and it is far more just to local taxpayers in any given
municipality.
I come from London, Ontario, and represent the riding of
London-Middlesex. We have seen examples of where people
have come to our city from other parts of Ontario and have
unfairly created a significant problem in the welfare budget of
that municipality. That very important program must be funded
from federal and provincial budgets.
Yes, there is only one Canadian taxpayer. We know that, but it
is not a responsibility that should fall upon the shoulders of
municipalities. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has
been saying that for years. I am confident that Minister of
Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance
will hear that message and take steps to redress the lack of
co-ordination and of proper funding of the programs.
The area of child care was a subject referred to earlier by a
Reform Party MP. There is nothing more important to fund than
child care. There are people who need subsidized care. We must
give that care to the children of the working poor. If we do not
we see far too clearly the horrendous social problems that result.
We simply delay paying the piper and create a number of
problems.
With those thoughts, I am very confident as a member of the
new government that we are on the right track. Real reform will
take place, led by the real reform party in the House, and that is
the Liberal Party.
(1620 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the member's comments.
The hon. member expressed his views. He explained for me
exactly why we are here in this House to debate. The member for
Vancouver Centre questioned why we were here to debate. She
said: ``What we are doing really is not having consultations
together''. She indicated that we were pre-empting the decision.
I would have to say that the hon. member who just spoke did
exactly that.
I have to go back to the member's text. I do not know if he
actually had this written down or if he was ad libbing. He did say
that we want to help them over the short term and then we are not
quite sure where they are going to go from there. He was
speaking about the unemployed.
``What will this eventually mean'', the hon. member asked. I
would like the hon. member to clarify exactly what was meant
by that statement. Having used the example of an annual
guaranteed income was of some interest to me. I would like
some clarification on that point.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I had some speaking notes and I
would like to correct the hon. member.
I was trying to make the point that social assistance should be
short-term help, whether it is in the form of welfare or
unemployment insurance. It ought to be in its best application
short-term help.
I did not indicate in any way where do they go from there.
Hopefully people on this short-term help will find with the
assistance of government and the private sector gainful and
decent employment.
905
If they do not, as they have not been unfortunately, the
short-term help has had to become long-term help, hence the
problem we find ourselves in.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I rise for the first occasion in the House of
Commons.
As is the tradition with maiden speeches I would like to take a
moment to thank my supporters who elected me on October 25.
More particularly I would like to thank my campaign workers
who spent many hours on my campaign. I would especially like
to thank my wife for her patience, encouragement and the many
sacrifices she has made in support of my campaign and my new
career. Last, I would like to thank my parents for their support,
guidance and encouragement over the last 37 years.
The riding of Elgin-Norfolk sits on the north shore of Lake
Erie and runs approximately 100 miles east to west. It begins in
a small town called St. Williams in Norfolk township and runs
through to Rodney in Aldboro township.
The riding is the birthplace of many great contributors to both
Canada and the world including Mitch Hepburn the former
premier of Ontario. As well, the inventor Thomas Edison was
born in Elgin-Norfolk. The renowned Liberal economist John
Kenneth Galbraith comes from just outside St. Thomas in a
small town called Dutton. Last, the great Canadian, the leader of
the New Democratic Party and member for Yukon also was born
in Elgin-Norfolk.
Elgin county has a long agricultural tradition. It has many
farms ranging from dairy farms through cattle farms, cash
crops, chicken farms as well as many others.
It is also the home of an important manufacturing sector,
particularly in auto related manufacturing and auto parts. The
main population centre, the city of St. Thomas, is the home for
the Ford Motor Company and Freightliner Truck
Manufacturing.
The people of the riding of Elgin-Norfolk wait with great
anticipation for the performance of the 35th Parliament of
Canada. My riding has suffered a tremendous job loss through
the last five years. Factory after factory has closed permanently,
all in the name of global restructuring. These people are anxious
to see policy changes which will increase their job security and
provide hope for their future, for their community and for their
children.
(1625)
The initiatives of this Parliament must speak to the needs of
the people of Elgin-Norfolk as it must speak to the real needs
of all members in Canadian society. Canadians, regardless of
where they live, expect that job opportunities will be created out
of economic growth and fairness in the tax system and
expenditure policies of this new government.
I would like to speak for a moment about first principles. The
principles of a good income support program or labour force
adjustment system should include a fundamental commitment
to the principles of social justice and a preferential option for
those most in need. Furthermore all of our programs, including
social spending, should facilitate a stable and growing economy.
The contribution that social spending makes to economic
growth has often times been overlooked in economic debates.
However a full discussion at this point would take me beyond
my 10 minutes so I leave it for another day.
More fundamental than the principles of any government
program are the principles of government. Mr. Vaclav Havel, in
his first book as president of the Czech and Slovak republic,
stated: ``I am convinced that we will never build a democratic
state based on rule of law if we do not at the same time build a
state that is-regardless of how unscientific this may sound to
the ears of the political scientists-humane, moral, intellectual,
spiritual and cultural. The best laws and the best conceived
democratic mechanisms will not in themselves guarantee
legality or freedom or human rights-anything, in short for
which they are intended-if they are not underpinned by certain
human and social values''.
My challenge for the Minister of Human Resources
Development and all members of this House is that we craft
programs which are both humane and moral.
Many members on both sides of the House, from all three
parties, have spoken about the pressing social issues in their
communities, be it the unemployed, the hungry, day care or
violence in the home. I would like to add my voice to theirs and
press the government to find solutions to the problems of
economic hardship throughout our nation. More specifically I
would like to ask the government to attack vigorously the issue
of poverty, including the plight of the working poor.
Too many Canadians, many of whom are working, are
experiencing long term and real financial and emotional
difficulties because they have fallen below the poverty line. Our
labour force adjustment strategy must ensure meaningful, well
paid jobs for Canadians not part-time subsistence work that has
too often been the case in the past.
Recently Dr. Shaw, a professor at the University of Toronto
Medical School, estimated that health costs due to
unemployment were over $1 billion a year. To all the members
here, I suggest that if we measure the health costs due to poverty
it would far exceed $1 billion. Our programs need to deal with
the issue of poverty head on, both for those who are working and
those who are not working.
906
In the few moments remaining, let me move from the general
to the more specific. Ultimately our ability to generate wealth is
a function of our knowledge. We live in a knowledge based
economy. The degree to which wealth is shared in this country is
a function of our moral commitment to take care of each other
and that means, in this day and age, ensuring that every
Canadian has access to meaningful education and meaningful
training so as to gain the knowledge to become a contributing
member of society through a job.
More specifically our review of UI needs to review the
training programs included therein. Too many of our training
programs are merely effective band-aids that do not offer
long-term realistic hope. The national training act needs to be
revamped. Provinces need to participate in an honest dialogue
so that the bogus distinction between education and training
disappears.
Let me close by asking all members of the House to
respectfully set aside their ideological differences and work
together to meet demands for a fairer Canada and a more just
Canada and end the scourge of poverty on our land.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
you very much for giving me the opportunity to enter into this
debate.
First of all I would like to congratulate the member for
Elgin-Norfolk. I can sympathize with him in making his first
speech in the humble assembly that is here. I can recall my first
week in the Alberta legislature. I was asked to move the speech
from the throne at the young age of 27. I remember a number of
people in the government of that time who had been there for 27
years and had most likely heard 101 different speeches and I had
to say something different to them. I remember that being a very
humbling experience. I am sure the member felt that way today
but respects this institution very much.
(1630)
I would caution the hon. member that one of the diseases that
often sets in after you have had the opportunity of being in this
assembly is that the 10 minute speech early in your career seems
to enlarge and enlarge until it becomes the 40-minute speech. So
be careful of that disease as you go forward in your career. I wish
you all the best and congratulations on your first speech in this
assembly. Very well done.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will always want to
speak through the Chair.
I am a little bit puzzled. Is the hon. member responding to the
speech or is he making his speech now?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Perhaps I could start my own
speech if it is appropriate or if Mr. Speaker permits I could ask a
question of the hon. member.
The Speaker: I was sort of looking forward to that expansion
of the speech that took 27 years. If he has a short question I
would like the hon. member to have a chance to answer.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I wish to ask the hon. member
how he sees the study that is going to take place with regard to
human resource development. Does the hon. member see the
targeting of programs for those who are need or does he see it in
terms of the philosophy of the government approaching the
responsibility of human resource development, social services
and other related programs on a broader budget basis?
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner for those
kind comments. I have no difficulty with the concept of
targeting those most in need. It is fundamental to what we need
to do as a country.
Over the last five years our expenditures on unemployment
insurance have grown from approximately $11 billion to $20
billion. In large part that is due to the problems in the economy
and the major downturn or economic depression we have been
through.
Given that we spend so much money in this country we need to
always for the sake of the poor and for the sake of those most in
need make sure that money is always well spent.
We need to look specifically at training programs that quite
often do not do the job. When our programs do not do the job as
they are supposed to, it is the disadvantaged people that are most
hurt, I have no problems with targeting those most in need.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): I appreciate very much the
courtesy to me and the hon. member as well, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to indicate I appreciate very much that the
government has allowed us as members to have input into the
reforms of the social security system and to make comments.
The minister has requested that all Canadians throw off the
old ideas, put aside vested interests and give some new impetus
and some new objective to our social security programs. That is
a very honourable objective of the minister.
Many other ministers and many other governments in the past
have also set the very same objectives. It seems to be a pattern.
When a new government comes to a legislative assembly or the
House of Commons the first thing it wants to do is review what
has happened and start anew. I certainly hope when we do this
review, we maintain some of the good programs and some of the
assistance, the safety nets that have worked well across this
nation.
907
(1635 )
Many Canadians in health departments and in social services,
social development and welfare departments have worked hard
to try and hone the current system this nation has. Over the years
I have had the opportunity of being involved in a number of
those reviews and studies.
The point that I want to make in my few moments here today
is with regard to what I see as the objectives of the Reform Party
of Canada and how we want to place ourselves in this review and
reform that will happen.
I say to the hon. member for London-Middlesex who was
talking a little earlier about having an inside track on reform, I
hope we approach the reform of the social service system on a
broader basis so that all Canadians and all sides of this House of
Commons have input into the new changes which will come
about during the first or second term of the 35th Parliament. Not
just the government, not just the Liberal Party, not in a partisan
way but on a broader basis.
As the Reform Party we must do two things. First of all, we
have a basic philosophic approach to social programs and those
programs meeting the needs of Canadians. I am sure all of us
have heard that in this assembly. We believe we should help
those in need, that no Canadian should suffer from a lack of
food, clothing, shelter and health care, that those basic four
requirements should be available to every Canadian. We believe
it should be there.
However we also say that because of the current
circumstances where we are some $500 billion in accumulated
debt, that the current track of the Liberal government as is set
out in its program whereby the object is to bring the deficit down
to 3 per cent of the GDP, even reaching that target we well
recognize that in the first year, if we reach that target in
1994-95, there will still be a $25 billion deficit to accumulate on
the debt. If we looked just at that figure over the next four years
we would add another $100 billion to the $500 billion.
What does that do in terms of the tax dollar? Right now, 32
cents out of every tax dollar goes to pay interest costs. If we
continue to build up the accumulated debt, as some economists
and some of those who have researched this very well have
indicated, if we continue on that type of a spending pattern, by
the end of the century we will end up paying 50 cents of every
one of our revenue dollars toward interest costs. The question
then is: How much does that leave to meet those basic needs we
think are so important, the food, the clothing, the shelter and
health care for Canadians?
We cannot run the country on 50-cent dollars. It is impossible
to do that kind of thing. We have to come to grips with it.
With respect to the upcoming budget, in the informal
discussions that are going on not just in this assembly but in
discussions in other committees and in talking informally with
government members and those who are trying to examine the
budget deficit that is coming up, the forecast is that we most
likely will have a deficit in the 1994-95 budget of $38 billion to
$39 billion. So we can imagine how that is going to erode and eat
away our capability as legislators to meet our social objectives.
That has to be part of the discussion when we look at reform.
It will not be the ideal that we come up with. We have to work
within the financial constraints we are facing. Certainly I would
recommend to the government in this reform that we must then
look at the definition of those in need.
There are a couple of examples. During our campaign period
we talked about those on old age assistance. At the present time
some $14.4 billion are allocated across this country in the
current year. In the former fiscal year it was about the same
amount of money. Those dollars, $14.4 billion, are allocated to
those persons receiving old age assistance.
(1640)
What we are saying as Reformers is an example of targeting of
programs. Those seniors getting a family income of $54,000 or
more-we feel that is adequate for the senior to live on-if we
were able to on a graduated basis maybe to $70,000 of income,
reduce their old age assistance using a formula we could take out
of expenditure in that old age assistance program some $3.4
billion. That amount could go toward reducing the deficit.
Rather than a $38 billion or $39 billion deficit that adjustment in
program may bring it down to $35 billion or $36 billion. That is
the kind of thing we have to do.
We have to look at the whole health care program. I know the
question of user fees is tossed around by the various provinces. I
come from the province of Alberta which is seriously looking at
user fees. I know the government has said it will not do that but it
is not because it wants to punish someone or take something
away, but there is a capability during these difficult economic
times for people to be able to pay for part of the service.
It is also believed there may be a deterrent in that those who
really do not need the health care service will not visit the doctor
as often as they are presently doing. We have to look at the case
of user fees as well in this review and this reform.
I could use other examples with regard to targeting of
programs. Under the circumstances I believe those terms of
reference must be considered in this reform. This is not a period
where we have a lot of money, where we can say to Canadians
that everybody is going to have a share of the government pie or
the revenue. We are not at that period of time in our history as
legislators and we have to recognize that. We have a major
908
responsibility in this assembly to come to grips with targeting
social programs and to be very fiscally accountable.
In my last few moments I would like to refer to a report that
was done in Alberta in 1967. This report is a white paper on
human resource development. It was written by the Hon. Ernest
Manning at a time when I was in his cabinet as the Minister of
Public Welfare. A major author of this was also his son, now the
leader of the Reform Party.
We put this white paper together and I am not referencing it
just for the sake of bringing this document here. There are some
basic principles in this paper that looked at human resource
development. It was the first document put together in Canada
on human resource development. We in the province of Alberta
introduced that concept. Following that period of time there
were other provinces and also the federal government of the day
that accepted some of the basic philosophy of the human
resource concept.
There were three basic objectives. One was to look at
programs of maintenance. There is a group of people in Canada
that needs assistance and maintenance. The second one was
rehabilitation and the third was preventative programs.
We had leading programs in the area of prevention in Canada
and I would like to recommend that to the committee for study.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Lethbridge for his remarks. I am pleased to
note that his book is also red and I could reference another red
book that may expand on some of the points they raised so long
ago.
I have a curiosity about part of what he presents.
(1645)
On the one hand his party has spoken strongly against any
expansion of taxes, any increase in taxes or anything to do with
causing people to pay more. Yet on the other hand his party is
quite willing to support user fees which by definition will cause
people to pay more for services they receive. I wonder if he can
reconcile this contradiction for me.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): That is an excellent question
from the hon. member. We look at it this way. If we are able to
reduce the cost of government, people will have more money in
their pockets to pay for some of their services.
There is a direct relationship between the reduction of the cost
of government and being able to pay for some of one's own
needs. In the four areas I mentioned, in terms of food, clothing,
shelter and health care, we would look at the individual having
more of a direct relationship between using the service and
paying for the service.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, since
my hon. friend made reference to my earlier comments I hoped I
would have the opportunity to ask him a question. I appreciate
that.
I made my point that to reform is to improve a situation. It is
to find a better way. Frankly that is the liberal way, and the party
that has consistently done that most effectively in this country is
the Liberal Party on this side.
Can the hon. member tell us how the destruction of the
national health care standards, which is the result of those
policies put forward by his party, would improve the situation
for Canadians in need? Can he go on and explain to us those
specific improvements in the social security system that the
Reform Party stands for?
The hon. member uses the phrase ``target social programs''
and that is the difference. We want to target social problems.
Can the hon. member enlighten us on those points?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): In terms of the first question, if
that reform means improving things and doing better we
certainly agree with that.
In terms of our targeting social programs and the hon. member
said social problems, I think we are using semantics more than
anything. I believe what the hon. member is saying is that
individuals out there are in need and that is who we would target.
We would have to categorize for example those that we feel need
incentive and encouragement to go back to work, look after
themselves as our economy picks up. We should have that kind
of flavour in our society. Our Prime Minister said the other day
that he wanted to get rid of dependency. We agree with that.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Haldimand-Norfolk-Dairy industry; the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River-Rouge River valley;
the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine-Immigration; the
hon. member of Rimouski-Témiscouata-Policy on
appointments; and the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe-Unemployment insurance.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take a few moments this afternoon to
discuss the reform of Canada's social security system.
Given your role here in this House you are of course non
partisan, but you will remember clearly that, during the last
election campaign, our party made a commitment to the people
of Canada. Indeed, we promised to give new confidence to the
majority of Canadians about having a job and a more promising
909
future in the years to come than they could hope for in recent
years.
[English]
As the then Leader of the Opposition and now the Prime
Minister said on the steps of Parliament Hill the day the election
campaign started: We must give Canadians their smile again.
We must give them that hope. We must make them feel better.
[Translation]
I am very much in favour of this initiative because, after all,
the goal is to improve social programs. For example, the
proposals put forward by our colleague the Minister of Human
Resources Development are aimed at improving the social
security system, so that it can better meet the expectations and
needs of Canadians.
(1650)
A good number of these programs have been in place for
several years and the Canadian economy has changed since they
were first introduced. I remember the days when an
unemployment rate of three per cent was considered equivalent
to full employment. Today's figures are totally different. I also
remember the days when it was perfectly normal to have one
salary per household, the bread winner usually being the man in
the house. It goes without saying that these standards no longer
apply. The situation has evolved and we must not only adapt
accordingly, we must also change our social programs.
[English]
I am of the view that the best social program is a job. There is
nothing quite like it, as they say in the commercial. If the best
social program is a job, as I submit it is, then surely all of the
other programs that we have must be such that one is always
better with a job than without one.
That is not the case with social programs today. How many
times have colleagues in this House heard constituents tell them
that they cannot afford to work, that the social program that they
are on is designed in such a way that they are taking a cut by
going back to work?
For a single mother with three or four children going back to
work is not easy. As a matter of fact, in many cases it is, without
saying impossible, very hard. I am of the view that it is high time
we started thinking of such concepts as guaranteed minimum
annual income in such a way that no one is punished for trying to
make life better for themselves. No one is punished for finding a
job. That is not the case right now. That is not the case at all.
The other part to this is the unemployment insurance
programs that we have. A few years ago we got into training
programs in a rather major way under many aspects of what is
commonly referred to as UI. Some of these programs are for
training but they are confusing at best.
[Translation]
Those of us who have referred constituents to training
programs under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act
know that these people can, if they get benefits the day that the
training begins, receive those benefits for a period which could
be extended to 156 weeks. However, if these people make a
claim under a program not covered by section 26 and go back to
school while receiving UI benefits, they not only lose the
possibility of having their benefit period extended, they also
lose those benefits.
You will agree that if the objective is to provide training,
programs should be structured so that people are not penalized
precisely because they take a training course, as they should.
[English]
On the other hand we have section 14. People qualify under
section 14 to take a training program sometimes identical to
those under section 26. If they are taking a program and if they
are offered a job they must resign forthwith from the training
that they are taking to go to the job.
However, if they were approved under the other section they
do not have to do it. That does not make a lot of sense to me. It
seems that whatever little block was ticked off beside one's
name determines how the training one will be receiving will be
administered and whether one will receive benefits, extend
benefits or have the benefits cut off altogether. That does not
seem like a reasonable proposition to me.
(1655)
If you are on unemployment insurance and you apply to work
on some of these make work projects, under section 25 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, you go back to work and you
receive a form of top-up in addition to your benefits, providing
you have enough benefits to cover the whole period of the
project you are going to work on.
In other words, if you have nine weeks of coverage left and
you are starting to work on a project that will last ten weeks, you
cannot work nine weeks and then quit. You have to refuse to take
it altogether because you must have the requisite number of
weeks for the duration of the program.
Maybe this makes sense to somebody but it does not at all to
me. I am having some difficult explaining all of this to those
who asked me to represent them in this Chamber.
910
[Translation]
I would like to see the government take a look at the
administration of its programs, so that these are better managed
and, more importantly, better co-ordinated, to meet the needs of
Canadians.
I will conclude by saying that I do not agree with those who
claim that we are spending more and more on social programs.
I just received today a document entitled ``The National
Finances'', published by the Canadian Tax Foundation.
According to this document, social programs subsidized by the
federal government represented 23.1 per cent of the tax base in
1984, compared to only 22.8 per cent in 1993-1994. We must
not forget that. We must not claim that we are proportionally
spending more and more all the time.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. I
noticed that he too had found in the present system many faults
that make it absolutely absurd from the recipients' point of
view. So, how do you expect the public to understand what the
hon. member was talking about?
Here is my question: Is the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell aware that he is no longer in the
opposition, that he is a government member and that his
government could act now rather than spend another nine
months consulting?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the hon.
member is suggesting that we should not have consulted him, as
the duly elected representative of his riding, and the other duly
elected members of this House, that the government should have
acted in an arbitrary manner, without consulting Parliament.
This may be a Bloc Quebecois pattern of thinking but we,
Liberals, have more respect than that for this place than the Bloc
has demonstrated. I might add, regarding the member who has
asked me the question in particular, that I know his own political
background much better than the previous Conservative
government?
Basically, what we want to do is to hear from the duly elected
representatives of the people to ensure that our programs will
meet the needs of Canadians. After all, that is what we were sent
here for.
The Deputy Speaker: I had planned to recognize the hon.
member for Jonquière next, but since his comment was of a
rather personal nature, in my opinion, I will give the floor back
to the hon. member for Rosemont.
Mr. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add that, were
the minister and his government to decide to act immediately to
remedy those faults, they would have my support and I think that
all my constituents would agree with me entirely.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my hon. colleague on his presentation. As a high
school guidance counsellor, I was for many years in a position to
meet workers who wanted to receive some occupational training
and who had to wrestle with unemployment insurance rules. And
I would have liked to say exactly what my hon. colleague said,
that is denounce the fact that some people today are not
receiving training because Canadian training policies are
inadequate.
(1700)
In addition to congratulating my colleague, I would like to ask
him a question. Why must all of these programs be standardized
across Canada? Why could the Government of Quebec not
oversee occupational training, as labour unions and
management are demanding? In fact, Quebec stakeholders are
unanimous in calling for all of these programs to be
administered by the Quebec government. Why is this not
possible at the present time?
Mr. Boudria: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the case
with Unemployment Insurance. My colleague opposite should
know, if he worked in that field, that welfare recipients are
confronted with the same kind of problems. So, it does not
happen only with federal programs. In fact, as we speak, the
problems facing welfare recipients may well be worse.
Now, the member opposite is asking me: would it not be
possible for certain programs to be administered by a single
level of government instead of two? It is certainly not
impossible, and no one said it was. As a matter of fact, if I am
not mistaken, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs stated clearly that he was planning
and had in fact started negotiations along that line. So, it is far
from impossible to negotiate successfully with provincial
officials and it is not fair to say that the programs are the same-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time allotted for
questions and comments period has run out.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to have an opportunity to speak on the subject of reform of our
social programs.
I have had the great privilege over many years in my
community as a volunteer, as an elected representative
municipally and as an elected representative federally to work
with people in my community to try to resolve some of these
problems and to agonize with them about the frustration of
programs, rules and regulations that do not allow people to take
the steps they want to take to become self-sufficient and to
create a better life for themselves and their children.
911
As I begin speaking today, I want to pay special tribute to
many of the women I have worked with over the years. I have
found tremendous strength among women living in poverty
trying to raise their children and trying to plan to get out of that
poverty trap to create new opportunities for themselves and their
children only to butt themselves up against a system that makes
it hard for them to do that.
The fundamental principle of liberalism is the dignity and
worth of every individual. Canadians heard the Prime Minister
and Liberal candidates across the country speak on that theme
time and time again. It is central to the red book and to the
economic and social programs that we put forward in the red
book and that we are all now intending to implement through
this Parliament.
However, believing in the dignity and worth of every
individual also means making sure that as a society we create the
opportunities for every individual to achieve their full potential
and to use that to their personal benefit, to the benefit of their
family, friends, community and country. Far too much inhibits
that now.
I had the privilege of attending the pre-budget consultation in
Toronto last week and hearing a speech by a former deputy
minister of this government, Arthur Kroeger, in which he talked
about the rising benchmark of unemployment that has been set
in each decade of the last half of this century, rising from
approximately 4 per cent in the fifties to over 6 per cent in the
sixties to plus 9 per cent in the seventies and to 10 per cent to 11
per cent in the eighties. It obviously seems stuck at that point for
the moment.
(1705 )
What has also happened is that the middle class has
disappeared into a economic polarization of our society. Some
people have moved up into higher paying, more secure, more
skilled jobs, and more have moved down into less skilled, lower
paying jobs and that bottom level seems to be declining.
I have also had the privilege recently of reading a publication
called "The Canadian Women's Budget" which talks about how
the policies of the previous government over the last five years
have further exacerbated that polarization of Canadians. A
family of two parents earning $20,000 a year, a pretty low
income we would all agree with two children, is now paying
more than three times the taxes it did. A middle income family is
paying 15 per cent more and the wealthiest Canadians are paying
less than 4 per cent more.
As I look at the need to be frugal, to make the best use of the
fiscal resources we have, to move toward a balanced budget, I
also want to move toward balance in the budget and who is
benefiting from the kinds of programs we have and who is being
left on the sidelines in an increasingly harsh world.
The poverty of children in our society is one of those things
that perpetuates a poorer and poorer society and fewer and fewer
opportunities for people to develop their talents, their abilities
and their skills and make the contribution they want to make and
are capable of making.
We know that children growing up in poverty are more likely
to drop out of school, more likely to be illiterate, more likely to
get sick, more likely to commit suicide. Poverty is a
fundamental issue that we as a society are not addressing.
I mentioned that I have dealt with poor women, single parents,
trying to raise their children, trying to create a better
opportunity for themselves. There is no scheme for them to
gradually move from dependency to independence. They are
punished if they try to. They lose benefits that are essential to
the security of their children.
I am a woman who has raised three children. Most of the
women I have worked with will sacrifice their own dignity for
the sake of the security of their children. We have to make sure
that we are not forcing them to make that choice.
We know that more women than men are poor. We have to ask
ourselves how we have allocated our resources in the past as a
society so that has happened, so that there is a segment of our
society consistently poorer and significantly poorer than society
at large. It has not happened by accident, it has happened by
specific policy decisions. What is there in our social programs
and in other programs of government that has allowed that to
happen, and in fact that has led to it happen?
I want to talk about the need to look at special needs in our
society. In the last government a project sat on the desk of the
minister of employment that for $26,000 a person would have
taken people with disabilities and trained them to work in the
high tech industry in which there is a desperate need for people
with the skills that this particular group of unemployed would
have been given. The government sat there and did not move on
that project.
I have been involved with training programs. I see how
desperately they are needed and wanted in communities. I talk
about a restaurant that a community group actually started as a
business so it could use that business and re-invest the income
from that business in training. I can count in the hundreds for a
very small investment of federal dollars the young men and
women who have come through that program, who have
established careers for themselves, who have turned their lives
around completely.
I want to talk about something we learned through those kinds
of programs. I hope this review goes to some of the fundamental
912
causes of why young people end up uneducated or
undereducated, unemployed or underemployed and unable to
integrate themselves into society at large and into the work
force.
(1710 )
What we found in common with other similar projects across
Ontario was that when we dealt with young people who met
these criteria of less than grade 10 education, out of work at least
six months, very little job experience to speak of, we were
dealing with a large component, over 80 per cent of children who
came from a history of sexual abuse.
Until we start addressing those fundamental issues of why our
children leave school, why they never quite make it in society,
we are not going to solve those problems.
I welcome this comprehensive review. I want to see us be
more frugal with our money. I do not want to leave my three
children a horrendous debt. Nor do I want to leave them a
meaner, nastier society than I have enjoyed.
I welcome this reform. I hope it will do some positive things
for a lot of Canadians.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for an interesting speech.
The member shows great concern for people caught in the
poverty trap and that is exactly what all of us have a concern for
here. I would like to ask the member a question. I wonder if the
member is familiar with a program that has been running in New
York state which has saved the taxpayers about $21 million over
the last few years while at the same time finding positions for
people who have been on the welfare roles for a number of years.
The project involves a private company and it is involved in
training with a different perspective. Instead of trying to teach
new skills, and I do not deny there are times when these new
skills are needed, what it does is search for and develop the
skills that are already there, however basic they are.
Then it teaches how to search for a suitable job and it helps the
person go to the interview and it does the follow up and
eventually when the person is placed it does the follow up to
make sure the person stays in the job.
After nine months of continuous employment the private
company that did the training is paid about $5,000 for having
placed the person.
As I said earlier that has saved about $21 million for the
taxpayers over the last few years.
I would like to know if the member would agree that type of
program could be useful in Canada, because about 85 per cent of
the people placed are still in the same job after one year. It has a
very high success rate.
This seems to be a way to save tax dollars while at the same
time helping people get out of that welfare rut.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go to the United
States to find examples of good employment programs and good
training programs with equal success rates. I find them in my
own community and I find them having been started by people in
the community who understand our needs, who understand the
resources of their community that they can bring to bear.
There is room for a mix of public and private sector
involvement as we address these issues as there is in programs in
Canada and in my own community. However, I think we need to
be cautious of one thing. It is very easy to have a higher success
rate in one program if one is very selective about who one
chooses and if one chooses only those people who are going to
succeed. There are some people who are a much greater
challenge whom the private sector, being interested in making
the greatest possible profit in the least possible time, might not
choose to work with.
For instance, I mentioned young people with a history that has
lead them to have fewer opportunities. I mentioned women,
many of whom were married at a very young age, who became
mothers at a very young age, became single parents at a very
young age when their partner left them. Those women not only
need specific training, development of skills they have,
development of new skills, but they need to develop a whole new
level of confidence in themselves and belief that they can make
a difference in their own lives.
(1715)
That does not lead to a lot of profits but it leads to a lot of
opportunities.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening to my hon. colleague. She is full of good
intentions. It is true that there is a substantial wage differential
between men and women. When you talk about youth issues, it
also concerns me directly. Except that the hon. member said:
``We want to do something, but we are not sure what''. There are
things you can do when you are in office.
In my riding, youth unemployment has reached 50 per cent,
not 30 per cent but 50 per cent. In my riding, there are no
universities. This means that we are continually experiencing a
brain drain. And those who leave do not come back. You are very
sensitive to that problem and you are full of good intentions, but
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So-
The Deputy Speaker: Your time is almost up. I will
recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some people, in
some areas, are facing much more serious problems than my
constituents.
913
Indeed, solutions are urgently needed, but when you make
profound changes, you must make sure that they are done well,
that they will not only remedy the problem for a week or a month
but provide a long-term solution.
I am sure that the people concerned have good ideas to suggest
and that we will make a better decision if we listen to them.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to thank my parents, my family, the constituents of my
riding of Lotbinière and all those who have worked directly or
indirectly to help me get elected. Thank you.
If I may, I would like to start my maiden speech by briefly
describing the beautiful riding of Lotbinière that I am proud to
represent. Flanked by the St. Lawrence River to the north, it
includes more than 50 communities with a total population of
94,315.
The largest community is the recently merged city of
Victoriaville-Arthabasca which is home to almost 40,000
people. Victoriaville-Arthabasca is the third most
industrialized city, per capita, in Quebec with close to 200
industries. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's house overlooks the city, where
the Susor-Côté family, Henri d'Arles and other famous people
were born.
The riding I represent offers many tourist attractions such as
the Lapierre mill in Norbertville, the Portage mill in Lotbinière,
the Bergeron plant in Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, not to mention
the region's numerous covered bridges, historic homes and
churches.
For a period of about ten years, the riding of Lotbinière was
represented in the House of Commons by the late André Fortin.
Mr. Fortin had a reputation for working tirelessly and with
unsurpassed vigour to defend the interests of his constituents. I
humbly hope that I can be worthy of that former member of
Parliament who achieved big things in this riding. If serving the
population means being a good member of Parliament, this is
what I intend to do.
I rise today to urge the Liberal government to think twice
before slashing social programs. Despite being optimistic by
nature, I must admit that rural regions such as mine are faced
with growing poverty.
(1720)
According to Statistics Canada, 4,680 men and women aged
15 and over collected unemployment insurance in 1991 in the
riding of Lotbinière, and this number has not improved with the
recession we have been through. Three years ago,
unemployment stood at 11 per cent of a labour force of 45,800.
Add those on welfare and much of the population will be
affected by the measures which the government intends to take.
The reason I refer to my region is that, like other rural regions,
it is in danger of suffering unduly from an ill-considered reform
of social programs. We are trying to get our head above water
and we fear that the Liberal government will put its hand on our
head and make us sink further. The regions are already in trouble
compared to the major centres. I certainly do not want to sound
alarmist, but if we go by the social development report
published by Quebec's Conseil des affaires sociales, we must
admit that Quebec is split in two. Indeed, in the first report
published in January 1989, we see an analysis of 25 regional
county municipalities along the south shore of the St. Lawrence
River, showing a decrease or no increase in population for 18 of
them between 1981 and 1986.
Of course, the exodus of our young people to major centres
has a lot to do with it. Why do young people leave their home
regions? Employment is their very legitimate reason. It is a
vicious circle because the higher the jobless rate in a
community, the more young people tend to leave it, as we can
read in the report of the Conseil des affaires sociales. For want
of economic and social opportunities, our young adults move to
the big cities, leaving behind an aging population which for that
very reason is more dependent on the state.
There are two Quebecs, one young and prosperous, the other
aging and poor. That is the situation in Quebec now, and it is no
doubt the same in other provinces of Canada. Even though
feelings of attachment remain strong in rural regions like
Lotbinière, Charlevoix, Matapédia and Lac-Saint-Jean, the
centralization of government services in cities identified as
regional capitals obliges the people in the regions to travel to
obtain services.
Another example, taken from the report of the Conseil des
affaires sociales published in 1990, shows that technical options
are not being offered in regional high schools but rather in larger
centres. Therefore many fifteen-year-olds go to the city not
only to study but also in the hope of finding work. For example,
Statistics Canada reported that nearly 35 per cent of the
population in my riding was at least 40 years old in 1991.
The Minister of Human Resource Development said this week
that he wanted the reform of social programs to create hope and
to end dependency, especially by creating jobs. I would love to
believe the minister, but nothing in his speech tells us how those
jobs will be created. Where is the hope for the people of the rural
regions I just mentioned? Their hope now lies in the help they
receive from social programs, imperfect as these may be. The
government will pay its debt with money taken from social
services, forcing the provinces to raise taxes again and putting
the federal government in a good light. There is more and more
discontent in the regions and I hope that the minister is aware of
the situation.
914
(1725)
Before concluding, I would like to quote Lise Bissonnette of
Le Devoir, who wrote these lines in the issue of Tuesday,
February 1, 1994:
-the operation also serves as a disguise to a final assault by the federal
government, which has been trying since the middle of the century to appropriate
provincial fields of jurisdiction enshrined in the Constitution, namely social
programs, education, and now labour relations.
It is possible to modify some programs without adversely
affecting the have-nots. It is possible to prosper in a regional
environment, as is demonstrated by Cascades. But for that to
happen, the government must act responsibly. In the past three
weeks, I have been receiving phone calls from poor people in my
riding. Their first question is invariably: Will the government
make cuts in the social programs? I would appreciate it if, one
day, the government opposite would tell us precisely and
honestly what it will do and where it will make those cuts.
Canadians need to be reassured. We must not wait until the poor
come and voice their discontentment here, in front of
Parliament. We must not wait until then. I will tell you one
thing: if it comes to that, I will side with the poor.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the member's speech. I congratulate
him on it, but I have a couple of questions and a couple of
concerns.
I am not absolutely certain but I think I heard him indicate that
he was relegating his riding to surviving simply on social
assistance, that was to be the mainstay of his riding's economy. I
cannot see that as a viable long term solution for his riding.
My riding suffers from high unemployment as well. I come
from a rural area with a number of communities. Although we
see the importance of social programs to help us through
difficult times, we see economic development and the pursuit of
rebuilding the economy and creating new jobs as being the long
term solution, not simply social programs.
My second observation is that there seemed to be a great
amount of concern among the needy of his riding, as he
described them, as to from what level of government the
assistance comes. It has been my experience when dealing with
individuals who are in need of government assistance that their
primary concern is that they receive the assistance. They do not
much care about a battle between different levels of government
getting in the way of the assistance getting to them.
I thought the member might like to comment on those two
points.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon.
member opposite. In the case of social programs, I think we
must bring in a reform when the economy is going strong and not
when it is down. Let me also add that in the case of the
unemployment insurance reform, that is Bill C-113, the
government penalized 99 per cent of the population simply to
catch the one per cent of abusers. In a family such as Canada, of
which Quebec is a full member, you must not resort to such
measures and hurt the vast majority just to get at a very small
number of individuals. You make reforms when the economy is
strong, not when it is in difficulty. The recession which we have
been going through since the early nineties is a good illustration
of my point.
(1730)
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, western society, that some see as an advanced society,
maintains certain values on which is based the principle of
equality among individuals. These values can be summed up as
the right to health, education, work and personal respect.
These values have long been recognized as essential by
Quebec society and by Canadian society. People here have
agreed to assume their responsibilities by providing everyone
with health, social and educational services whose quality we
can only be proud of.
In his motion to the House earlier this week, the Minister of
Human Resources Development considers broad consultations
to modernize and restructure Canada's social security system,
``with particular reference to the needs of families with
children, youth and working age adults''.
In his statement, the minister assures the Canadian population
that, far from wanting to make our social security system less
efficient, he wants to improve it. The minister could not be more
explicit. We must ensure, he said, that the system continues to
offer basic security to all those in need.
What worries me is that there are more and more people in
need in this country. Where should we draw the line? Can we
draw a line without endangering the principles of universality
and accessibility?
If I may, I would like to remind the House that one out of five
Quebecers lives below the poverty line; it is easier to identify
the groups that are not affected than those who are.
In Canada, one child out of six is poor. If the children are poor,
it means that their families are poor. They are not able to offer
the living conditions essential to the development of children. It
915
must be pointed out, however, that this situation is not the
parents' fault but results for the most part from economic hard
times and the current climate of government indifference.
Being poor means being hungry, being cold, being unable to
concentrate in class, being sick more often than others; it often
means having lost hope, living with violence, addictions and
despair.
Some say that the government is on the brink of bankruptcy.
Everyone agrees that it is imperative to reduce the deficit.
However, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that
the measures advocated will have no negative effects on the
disadvantaged. These measures should primarily be designed to
improve socioeconomic conditions for those in need. To launch
a real effort to put its fiscal house in order, the government must
concentrate on its operating costs and on defence spending.
It is only during an election campaign that we dare to propose
miracle solutions to balance budgets with such large deficits. No
one in this House is fooled, let alone the citizens of Quebec. The
government must resist the temptation to cut social programs
and service delivery.
(1735)
The minister of human resources tries to reassure us by saying
that under the system, basic security will be extended to all
those in need. However, the services that are available right now
to help those wishing to escape difficult circumstances and
improve their lot in life are already inadequate. The government
must devise a strategy to beef up social programs and services
while bearing in mind the financial ability of the provinces, and
of course Quebec, to pay and scrupulously upholding the
principle of program accessibility and universality.
Substantial cuts in recent years in federal transfer payments
for health care have considerably increased the tax burden of the
provinces and of Quebec. Public concern over possible cuts in
federal social housing subsidies has left us fearful that this
government is no longer seeking the path to reform, but has
already found it.
The official opposition will never agree to allowing this
government to get a handle on the deficit by strangling society's
less fortunate members. Curbing the deficit by cutting social
security is unacceptable in a society that for many decades has
defined itself as just and fair, a good place to live.
Quebec has long been demanding, and with good reason, an
end to overlap, duplication and federal government
encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially
health care and education.
Quebecers and Canadians have long been calling for a
healthier, more streamlined government machine. Eliminating
the additional expenditures resulting from program overlap
would be another step forward in the process of putting our
public finances in order.
The consultation process launched this week is important.
The stakes are high and this government cannot afford to
misdiagnose the problem and, especially, to prescribe the wrong
medicine.
I am proud to be a member of the nursing profession and
recently, the Association des infirmiers et des infirmières
compared the cost of health care in Canada with costs in the
United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and
Sweden. It would appear that health care costs are higher here
than anywhere else. But, is our health care system any better for
it? Would our services suffer if we were to identify the reason
for these cost disparities?
Nurses are in favour of maintaining the quality of health care
in this country. By listening to their expertise, perhaps we can
come up with ways of using all of our health care system's
resources more intelligently.
Like all modern societies, Quebec want to control its growth
and confront the future in a dynamic, responsible manner. The
outcome of this debate must not impede the attainment of this
objective.
(1740)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough on
questions or comments.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I regret to
say that I was standing here because my colleague had placed his
brief case in my seat. If there is something of interest that you
would like me to say, could you give me a topic and I could
begin.
The Deputy Speaker: We will not see that member for a long
time in the future.
Is the member for London-Middlesex standing because he
wants to do some other thing or ask questions?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I
really did mean to stand. I appreciate you giving me the floor.
We have now heard the last two speakers from the Bloc
praising and extolling profusely the health care system of
Canada. How great it is to hear that praise.
Then I have to remind myself that this is the party whose
whole raison d'être seems to be to break up this country. I have a
problem reconciling that effusive praise for our social services
system with what is their political goal.
That leads me to my question. There seems to be a prejudging
of the consultation process that the minister of human resources
seems intent on starting throughout this country which is a very
necessary consultative process. Could the member explain to us
916
why it is that the Bloc members seem to want to prejudge the
consultation and why they do not seem to want to have the
people of Quebec as part of this consultative process.
Maybe she can reconcile the irreconcilable of why they want
to break up such a wonderful nation with such a great system.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. member that
she has four minutes left to conclude her speech.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my
mind that I will make good use of those four minutes to answer
the hon. member for London-Middlesex.
First, I thank him for taking the time to listen to me. He
deserves credit for being still here at 6 p.m. on a Thursday
evening.
The hon. member says he asked me two questions.
Unfortunately, I believe he asked only one question because he
first said that the Bloc Quebecois wants to destroy this
magnificent country. His only question was: Why do we want to
destroy this magnificent country since we, of course, recognize
that the social security services which exist here, especially
since the end of the Second World War, are services which we
can be proud of.
Canada is indeed a great country, but it is so great that,
somehow, Quebecers feel a little removed from it.
Unfortunately, we are different; we have different values which
are important to us and, like Canadians, we respect people.
Indeed, Quebecers, like Canadians, truly respect the importance
of people's health; the difference is that Quebec was able to
innovate and break new ground in all kinds of areas. Let me give
you two examples. I believe Quebec was the first province to
introduce maternity benefits or childbirth grants. Quebec's way
of looking at things is slightly different and this is what makes a
society rich and special.
What the Bloc Quebecois wants, along with a great number of
Quebecers, is to create a new state which will be able to have
equal and active relations with its neighbours. I should add that
we will be very happy to have Canada as our neighbour, because
it is a great country which we respect, and we will also be very
happy to have the United States as our neighbour.
I hope that answers the question of the hon. member for
London-Middlesex.
(1745)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): I wanted to
put a question to the hon. member. I listened to her speech; she
talked about the deficit and Canada's financial problem. I
simply wanted to ask her if she had discussed these issues with
her colleagues since they have a certain experience with those
problems which certainly existed prior to October 25.
I was wondering for example if the hon. member had talked to
the member for Saint-Hubert, the members for Richelieu,
Longueuil and Rosemont and most of all, the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean because these people have a vast experience and
were part of the government at a time when all those problems
were very obvious for all Canadian taxpayers.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, as time is running
short and you were in the country in those days, perhaps you
could answer the hon. member's question.
Of course it is important to reduce the deficit, but we must cut
where it is logical to do so. It is logical to trim the fat first and
for the time being, there are still a lot of areas where we can trim
some fat.
You know, in my kitchen, if I throw away some milk because
it went sour, I am wasting it. Well, in this great and wealthy
country of ours, I think there is still some waste. It is a collective
as well as an individual responsibility and members of this
House, of this government, who should serve as models, must
set an example. I hope I have answered your question.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate on the motion of the
Minister of Human Resources Development because it is one
which will deeply affect the people of my riding and deeply
affect all Canadians.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore has fallen on hard times recently.
Many of our industries have packed up and left town leaving
empty plants and office spaces and many unemployed people in
their wake.
We have people capable of providing highly technical
knowledge but with little infrastructure for support. The youth
in my riding are facing an ever bleak future and it seems that no
matter what their training is there are no jobs for them. There are
many seniors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who are living on the
edge of poverty and they are all concerned about the quality of
life they will have in their remaining days.
My constituents and all Canadians are in a state of despair.
They are having a hard time not only finding but keeping their
jobs. Many who have jobs are underemployed or work only part
time and intermittently.
During the campaign I promised and I committed according to
the red book. I committed together with all the members of the
Liberal Party who were campaigning at the time that we would
invest in people; that we would help individuals to make better
choices for themselves and for their families; and, that we would
help individuals to establish new ways of participating in a
social and economic structure that would make a difference for
them.
917
We talked about rebuilding the security system, offering
employment, offering hope, creating a more productive
economy through better use of human resources, their skills,
their talents and their abilities. We also spoke about education
reforms, about our young people and the way in which we would
have to prepare our young for the future ahead of them.
This despair is felt; and this minister's commitment to a
review of the system is exactly what we need to do. We want to
ensure that our children are well trained and educated and we
want jobs for ourselves and for our future.
We recognize the contribution of senior Canadians. They
spent their lives working to make a better place to live. They
contributed to the development and funding of social programs.
They should be able to live in security and enjoy retirement. The
Canada pension plan, old age security, and guaranteed income
supplement are meant to contribute to their security. These
programs are no longer working as they were meant to.
(1750)
By the year 2020 it is predicted that 20 per cent of our
population will be seniors. Maybe many hon. members will be in
that category. If we do not work on these programs now there
will be no support for those Canadians then.
There is really one course of action. That is to involve
Canadians in a full review of the system, a review that includes
unemployment insurance, social assistance, training, education,
looking at our young people, looking at our children and
families or single and lone parent families, and all those who are
presently experiencing difficulty in the system.
We must involve all Canadians in this dialogue. We must
involve as many Canadians as possible because these programs
affect each and every one of us from the cradle to the grave. We
each have an interest, a shared concern in the system, because
we are all stakeholders. This is why we have embarked on this.
The hon. members of the Official Opposition would have us
believe that what we are about to do is what the Tories did: slash,
burn, and cut and somehow walk away from the realities of the
lives of the people we are here to serve.
The Liberal Party founded most of today's social programs.
These programs were designed for a different time but they were
based on the same values which we hold dear today. They were
based on the beliefs that each and every Canadian has a right to
live with dignity, that each and every Canadian should be able to
earn his or her own living. They were based on the knowledge
that we do not all have equal opportunities in life and that we
should work to ensure a certain standard of living for all. That
includes unemployment insurance for those encountering
difficulties in the workplace, social assistance for those facing
poverty, and a pension plan for those in their senior years.
We want to protect those values. We want to ensure those
values continue to exist in our social security system. We can
only do so with a comprehensive review such as the minister has
proposed.
I commend him for this ambitious plan and encourage all
members of this House to work and to work steadfastly to ensure
that we provide the environment and the kind of security that is
needed in our country.
I extend my own support and pledge I will do everything in my
capacity to ensure that the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore
and all Canadians participate in this endeavour.
We have recommitted through the red book that this must be
done to ensure that our commitment is met.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since there are only three minutes left,
I would ask the member for Bourassa to share them with the
parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, first, I would
like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her election as an MP.
She is from one of Canada's important minority groups, and
since I too belong to one of them, I think that we should be able
to work together for Canada's minorities.
The member mentioned unemployment. I believe that in
Canada, minorities are particularly affected by unemployment
and the economic crisis. I would like to hear her views on equal
access programs such as job access and affirmative action for
minorities. I hope the government will make more room for
minorities in the federal public service where they are
under-represented.
(1755)
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and for the opportunity to share some of his
experiences that we have in common.
I do care about equity issues. I think we are on the road to
equity. If we look around the Chamber we can see that there are
opportunities for us to work in a fashion that would reflect the
nature of Canadian society.
Canadian society is not just English and French, or people
from Quebec and people from the rest of Canada. We are
multicultural and multiracial. We must be in every place in
society. We must aspire to be the best Canadians that we can be
and every opportunity must be given to individuals. It is a waste
of talent and ability when every individual is not given the
opportunity to reach their full potential.
918
That is why I am here. That is why the hon. member is here.
We are all here to work in the interests of Canadians to make
sure we have a society that is equitable, that is working, a
society where each and every individual is a person of dignity, of
worth and able to participate fully in Canadian society.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.55 p.m., pursuant to order
made Wednesday, February 2, 1994, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose
of the motion in relation to Government Order No. 4, now before
the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Wednesday,
February 2, 1994, the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, February 8, 1994, at six o'clock.
_____________________________________________
918
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I rise
this evening under Standing Order 37(3) to discuss a question I
had in question period the first day of this session.
I know when I was on the other side of the House not too many
members on this side of the House got up under this standing
order.
However, I thought it might give me an opportunity to discuss
a serious situation in my riding and in ridings across this country
regarding Canada's position as it came out of the GATT
negotiations regarding ice cream and yogurt. At that time I
asked the minister what he was doing and how the negotiations
were going with the Americans.
There is a lot of concern out there that over the past few years
the government has not stood up for the rights of Canadian
farmers when negotiating with the Americans on these issues.
In fact there are many in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk
who feel that the government has failed in any attempt over the
past few years to put a strong argument forward on behalf of
Canadian farmers.
I ask the minister if he would not stand up to the Americans
and tell them we are not prepared to cave in to their position on
ice cream and yogurt which was essentially to lower those tariffs
to zero immediately.
(1800)
The minister may not be aware of a legal decision that has
come forward to us from the dairy farmers of Canada that in fact
supports the Canadian position that we can put a tariff on ice
cream and yogurt. I know the minister will be very pleased to
hear this. In fact Richard Doyle of the Dairy Farmers of Canada
says in a letter:
The drafters of the NAFTA text clearly recognized that GATT rights and
obligations would not be static, but grow and change with the agreements
negotiated under the GATT. In light of the extensive references to developments
and future agreements under GATT, it appears unlikely that a successful
argument could be made against Canada's decision to reduce tariff levels
according to its GATT rights and obligations. In reviewing the legal opinion,
valid arguments have been identified to support the position that your
government took during the GATT negotiations.
I have here a legal opinion by the American law firm,
Cameron and Hornbostel. I am sure the hon. minister does not
have this legal opinion yet because it was just sent out. It is dated
February 1.
I am sure when he receives it he will look at it and make it very
clear to the Americans that unless we can negotiate a deal we do
intend to keep these tariffs on ice cream and yogurt. In fact, we
will fight as hard as we can to make sure that we have a
continued supply management system in this country and a
viable agriculture sector.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
reply to my colleague's comments. I commend him for the
interest that he has shown and continues to show on this issue.
There are a number of outstanding agri-food trade issues that
are being discussed and are problems between Canada and the
United States at the present time. The Minister of Agriculture
attempted to resolve these while he was in Geneva but the
Americans did not see fit to take part in those discussions at that
time and unfortunately we were not able to get a bilateral
agreement.
919
Of course, the issues did not go away. The problems did not go
away. Canada is still seeking a resolution to these issues in a way
that meets Canadian needs. There have been ongoing bilateral
negotiations over the past several weeks. The minister met with
his U.S. counterpart in Toronto on January 8. Those discussions
are not yet concluded and continue to go on at this time.
I would like to state clearly that the government is working to
defend the interests of Canadian agriculture in these
negotiations. All sectors of agriculture and the agri-food
industry in all parts of Canada are being considered and taken
into account.
Everyone who is familiar with the Canadian industry has
known for some time that the trade regime for ice cream and
yogurt was going to be a difficult issue in the conclusion of the
Uruguay round. A GATT panel ruled in 1989 that Canada's
import quotas on ice cream and yogurt were not consistent with
article XI. Canada accepted the findings and agreed to bring its
measures into conformity with GATT. In light of that
multinational trade union result, the government is continuing
to seek resolve of that situation.
The government remains committed to ensuring that our
supply management systems can continue.
With the support of the provincial ministers of agriculture, the
federal minister has asked me to lead a small task force to
consult with all stakeholders to talk about and discuss what
changes may be necessary and what mechanisms will be
required so that we can continue to have orderly marketing for
the supply managed commodities into the future for the benefit
of all Canadians.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to take up an issue that was raised in Question Period just a
few days ago which related to a large piece of my riding of
Scarborough-Rouge River. That is the lands that comprise the
Rouge River Valley.
What I collectively refer to as the Rouge Valley lands
comprise approximately 10,000 acres in what is now an urban
environment. The 10,000 acres, give or take a few, basically
include the two river valleys that comprise the two Rouge River
tributaries. These lands have somehow managed to survive
intact as an integral ecological unit with their evolved flora and
fauna.
(1805)
In recognition of that fact we have to pay tribute to those who
over the last 15 or 20 years realized this and made it known
before it was too late in the face of the development of these
lands. Now the Rouge Valley lands have received a commitment
from provincial, federal and municipal governments to preserve
them in an ecological park of the sort that is still being
negotiated and managed.
To give an example for the record, the Rouge Valley River still
has 55 species of fish. It is home to 200 species of birds, 28
species of mammals and 700 species of plants, forest and
vegetation. That is in an urban area of Toronto. As hard as it is to
believe, we must be thankful for it and make a commitment to it.
My question involved the seeking of a commitment from
federal, provincial and municipal governments and that whole
community that comprises eastern metro. We are looking for a
commitment from this government to complete a promise of
funding of $10 million given in 1987. Part of this commitment
has already been used for the acquisition of an aboriginal burial
site at the edge of park boundary. There was also a commitment
of federal expertise in managing park lands or ecological
habitats.
Some believe the park could be jointly developed and
managed by the provincial and federal governments. Others
believe the park should be managed by an entity developed
specifically for that purposes and others who think the
municipal government should also have a role.
I am seeking a further commitment from the federal
government and I am very hopeful along with all the people I
represent and all the people in the southern Ontario community
who care very much about this priceless asset. We hope the
federal government will commit to further involvement in the
project.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Scarborough for his question on the Rouge River
Valley.
As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated to
the House, this government remains committed to the creation
of the Rouge River Valley Park. In fact this 11,400 acre preserve
is North America's largest urban park. Its creation is an
excellent example of co-operation among the federal and
Ontario governments as well as private organizations in meeting
federal government environmental objectives.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, the federal government
has been in favour of the Rouge River Valley Park. In 1988, the
Minister of the Environment of the time announced that the
Canadian government would invest $10 million for the
conservation of the valley.
[English]
In fact, the federal government contributed $1.5 million of the
$2.6 million purchase price for the culturally significant Bead
Hill National Historic Site in Scarborough within the Rouge
River Park. This is the only intact 17th century Seneca village
and burial ground known in Canada.
[Translation]
As my friend from Scarborough-Rouge River knows, Bead
Hill is an example of an important aspect of native history which
is under-represented in the Canadian network of national
historic sites.
920
(1810 )
[English]
The federal government's commitment to the Rouge River
Valley Park remains firm. Upon establishment of a park
management agency by the Ontario government, we would be
pleased to consider funding further projects for park
development within our commitment.
I would like to thank my friend from Scarborough-Rouge
River for displaying his continuing interest in Rouge River
Valley Park. It is a very important element in the lives of his
constituents as well as all Canadians. He should be
congratulated for bringing their concerns to the forefront of
discussion in the House.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising to discuss further the question I asked in the House the
other day that dealt with the funding levels for settlement
programs for immigrants.
As I mentioned during question period, 59 per cent of the
250,000 immigrants who settle in Canada settle in Ontario but
only 39 per cent of the federal immigration settlement program
funds go to language training for Ontario. As I mentioned, the
budgets of the school boards in Ontario are being cut constantly
by the provinces which is resulting in language training
programs being cut.
I want to expand a little on why this issue is important and
what it means to the future of all people in Ontario. We talk a
great deal about the future of this country, stating that higher
education is extremely important in order for the young people
to be able to build careers, especially in the new knowledge
based industries.
If the immigrant children who come to this country are not
able to learn the language where they reside, whether it is
English in Ontario or French in Quebec, they do not have the
basis on which to build an education and a career, thereby being
relegated to dead end jobs and being denied, in essence, a proper
education.
The problem does not remain just with children. It is a wider
issue and affects adults as well. When I came to this country in
1957 there was no such thing as a language program. Therefore
we as children had to struggle.
The parents who worked long hours from five in the morning
to eight at night either in factories or construction-certainly
my parents-were not able to learn the language properly. We
are now paying in a social way because if we do not pay up front,
we pay later as a society.
Later we will pay for the seniors. We talk about seniors issues
in this House. We must remember that there are hundreds of
thousands of seniors in this country who came here and worked
for the last 35 or 40 years and are not yet cognizant enough of the
English language to be able to take advantage of the programs
we provide through our taxpayers' dollars. They are not able to
take advantage of the counselling programs we provide. They
are not able to take advantage of a lot of programs that are
available to the average Canadian. This creates an added burden
on society.
My question is very important because I am concerned and
interested. I want to make sure we look at funding. I am not
simply asking questions from the point of view that we want
more money because there is money going elsewhere or what
have you. It is not a light question. I am looking very seriously at
the implications of what it means to people and the effect it has
on these people's lives down the road, both the children and
adults along with the seniors eventually.
It is a social issue and not just one of immigration. I want to
make sure the minister understands that. I want to ask the
minister if the discussions I understand the parliamentary
secretary to have mentioned that day are in any way anticipated
to bring about results in the near future or if we are looking at
something that will take still some time.
My concern is that something happen as soon as possible
simply because we cannot afford to have children in the school
system who do not get a proper education. The school boards get
their money as we know from ratepayer taxes. It is a finite
source and it is very difficult to deal with added resources.
We as a government and as a nation have a responsibility to
assist in this area because we are the ones that set the levels. We
work with the provinces in identifying the immigrants we want
to come to this country. We have a responsibility to then work
with the provinces to make sure there is equity in the system.
I would appreciate it if the minister would address that aspect
of my question.
(1815)
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
member has a long and distinguished background in settlement
work in her home province. She can take pride in the fact that the
government has already introduced regulatory changes that will
allow refugee claimants to work while awaiting the outcome of
their claim.
The government is committed to enhanced co-operation and
co-ordination between the two levels of government. We will
have to work together to use scarce resources more effectively.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration met on Monday
with his Ontario counterparts to discuss the very matter raised
by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine. I am pleased to
say that the province of Ontario and the federal government will
begin negotiations with a view to establishing an immigrant
921
agreement. Ontario is one of only three provinces that does not
have an immigration agreement with the federal government.
With this first step we have clearly demonstrated our
willingness to enhance co-operation and co-ordination between
the two levels of government. The federal government has a
series of settlement programs and services designed to help
immigrants access services available to all Canadians. These
programs are designed and delivered on the understanding that
settlement is a process that involves new and established
Canadian residents.
Canadians are involved as sponsors, service deliverers,
volunteers and hosts. More than 300 external partners have
entered into contribution agreements with the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration for the delivery of services to
newcomers.
The program allocations for the various settlement programs
for 1993-94 will be over $251 million. We understand and share
Ontario's concerns about settlement and integration, and we are
certainly prepared to listen. This immigration agreement will be
the first step in addressing Ontario's concerns.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced
yesterday and again today, he is placing this House in front of a
fait accompli with respect to the appointment of a new President
of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He has refused to
subject this appointment to a parliamentary committee for
approval in a free, binding vote, as the previous government had
promised.
Yesterday, I asked the minister to explain to the House why
this policy was changed and why candidates for the position of
president and chief executive officer of the CBC had to send
their resumés to the Prime Minister's Office, to the official in
charge of appointments, who is a long-standing Liberal Party
activist.
The minister told us that the policy had changed because the
government had changed and went on to refer me to page 454 of
Hansard. That was an obvious statement if there ever was one.
And the reason I am rising again on this question this evening is
that the minister's answer was totally unacceptable as it did not
address my question.
I did refer to Hansard as the hon. minister had so kindly
suggested and here is what I found, and I quote: ``The
government will announce shortly the appointment of the new
president of the CBC''.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my
question. The previous government had instituted an
appointment process designed to be non-partisan, in which
nominations were to be sent to recruitment committees. Since
coming into office October 25, the new government has been
telling us that they were following in the tracks of the previous
government. Let me tell you that they have gone off the track
and that openness has been thrown into the ditch.
Today, I asked the minister again why his government had
made that change? To no avail.
Why did the minister not submit the appointment to the
parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage?
Why does the minister refuse to table before that committee,
meeting in camera, the list of candidates who have turned down
the job as reported in La Presse today.
Why does the minister refuse to be more transparent about
political appointments when his Prime Minister is boasting left
and right that he wants to restore the confidence of the people of
Canada and Quebec in their public corporations and federal
institutions?
Is it only because the minister is not an expert on
parliamentary procedure, as he said himself?
At the first opportunity the government has to make good on a
promise, namely to run the country with transparency, it has
candidacies sent to the Prime Minister's Office instead of an
impartial recruitment committee.
I think that the people of Quebec and Canada are entitled to
see for themselves that the people running their public
corporations are chosen on the basis of objective criteria.
(1820)
Need I remind you that we are entitled to question the
government's openness on this? Indeed, we have no grounds to
believe that the credibility of the process of appointment to
management positions in federal institutions has been improved
by the recent change of government.
How many candidates refused the position in the CBC? Why
did the Prime Minister break with tradition and prefer to choose
a candidate from inside instead of from outside the
organization? The minister had many meetings with the
candidate while he was acting president of the Corporation since
November. Did the minister discuss his candidacy during those
meetings? Did the minister support the candidacy? Did he
personally recommend it to the appointments director? Who
really made the decision? The minister, Mrs. Collenette or the
Prime Minister on the advice of his special adviser, the former
president of the CBC?
922
All these questions are unanswered. Could the minister
answer them directly tonight, without referring me to Hansard
this time?
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage I am pleased to respond to the
question raised by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata on
the appointment of the new president of the CBC.
[Translation]
As the minister said, the selection process for the new
president of the CBC was very transparent. On November 13,
1993, a call for candidacies was printed in The Canada Gazette,
and all interested candidates had the opportunity to apply for the
position. Also, many people were consulted on this issue.
The CBC needed someone with experience who knew the nuts
and bolts of this institution and was ready to go into action
immediately. Mr. Manera is such a person. He has been working
for the corporation since 1985, holding the positions of senior
vice-president, Resources and Administration, and more
recently, acting president.
The appointment of the new president comes with a series of
measures the government has undertaken to allow the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation to assume its own destiny, one of the
commitments the Liberals included in the red book.
[English]
The appointment of Mr. Manera and the series of measures
announced will assist the CBC in reinforcing its role as public
broadcaster and as a national institution serving the Canadian
public.
[Translation]
Of all our cultural institutions, the CBC is undoubtedly the
one which plays the most significant role in defining our
national identity.
The broadcasting industry is undergoing massive changes,
and it was imperative that we appoint a president capable of
dealing with the financial problems of the Corporation and of
reasserting loud and clear the role of the CBC as a public
broadcaster serving the Canadian public. That is exactly what
we have done, and an announcement on this issue was made this
morning.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the minister of Human Resources Development ended
his answer to my question on a potential Unemployment
Insurance costs increase by inviting the Official Opposition to
co-operate with him in a thorough examination of social
programmes, and thus study the question of government's social
expenditures as a whole.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister of
Human Resources Development that we should also take a look
at the evolution of certain of our social policies, and I am
particularly referring to the lack of a family oriented policy in
Canada, since 1994 year is the International Year of the Family.
With the emergence of a certain form of neoliberalism in the
eighties, a new view of family responsibility has come to the
fore; it has now become an individual responsibility, thus
freeing society from a seemingly embarrassing load.
(1825)
Federal social policies are often based on a concept of the
family where the husband is the only wage earner. Thus, we have
a married exemption in our tax system. In our old age security
plan, the wife's benefits are cut in half when her husband dies,
but if the wife dies, her husband keeps all his benefits.
As a result of complex changes in the tax system and the
deindexation of family and child benefits, a Senate committee
says that, from 1986 to 1991, the federal government grabbed
$3.5 billion out of the family and child benefits program. A
Quebec family with two children and an income of $70,000 a
year pays as much tax as a childless family with the same
income.
Thus, a couple who chooses to invest in a pension plan will
have generous tax deductions, but if it prefers to invest in the
future of the Quebec nation by having children, it has to fend for
itself without any help from Revenue Canada.
This lack of family oriented policies at the federal level
carries tragic consequences. In 1991, the number of children
depending on food banks in Quebec and Canada was estimated
at 700,000. One year later, it was 900,000. Many teachers
throughout our school system complain that they are now social
workers because of a sharp deterioration in family life and
because of the number of children they look after.
The following case shows the great inconsistency of federal
family-oriented policies. In Toronto, a young mother, owner of
a small business with nine employees, had to be on her job in her
business two days only after having a baby. That person
contributes to plans insuring a significant percentage of her
employees' salaries when they are on maternity leave, but
nothing in the social policies of the federal government provides
for maternity leave for that small business owner. Such a
situation is unacceptable.
The establishment of a universal day care program, maternity
leave and special leave granted to mothers to provide care to a
sick child are but a few of the issues that have to be debated in
initiating a true reform of social programs, and especially the
establishment of family oriented policy.
923
Simple things such as allowing children to have lunch at
school so that they do not have to travel, offering flexible work
schedules and offering a flexible transit system to seniors
would also foster the emergence of a family oriented policy.
In the past, the federal government, and this includes the
Liberal government, showed a lack of vision and a lack of
courage towards Quebecers and Canadians with respect to
family oriented policies.
We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, are convinced that a
review of our social programs starts with the development of a
real family oriented policy in Canada as well as in Quebec.
Whatever options the Liberal Party has, it is difficult for us to
think that this government can ignore the fundamental changes
that family structures have undergone in Canada and Quebec
since the introduction of social programs.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the UI premium rate for 1994 has been set at the minimum rate
required under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The rate will
not be increased during 1994. Furthermore, the government will
introduce legislation to prevent the UI premium rate from rising
in 1995 as would otherwise occur under the provisions of the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
The UI program is self-financing from premiums paid by
employees and employers. The federal government temporarily
finances UI deficits but premium revenues must eventually
match UI costs. We therefore might have paid for the freeze by
allowing the deficit in the UI account to rise, thus postponing the
day it would return to balance, but we decided that would be
imprudent.
There is widespread recognition of the need for a
comprehensive reform of Canada's social security programs. No
department or government on its own could design all the
appropriate changes. Therefore we hope members of the House
from all parties will participate in the reform of social programs
including unemployment insurance.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development said in
response to the hon. member's original question, the review of
the social security system that was launched in the House on
January 31 will consider the issues of unemployment insurance
rates and premiums in a broader context.
The hon. member will agree that the problems facing
Canadians in the 1990s go far beyond the financing of the UI
system. Unemployment, poverty, global competitiveness,
changes in the work place and skill shortages are only some of
the factors we must consider in the process of rebuilding the
social security, labour market and learning framework of our
country.
The scope of the review will include UI but will extend
beyond it to include training and employment programs, social
assistance and income security, education and learning, labour
practices and rules affecting the workplace, and taxes and
premiums that affect job creation.
Our goal is to reduce reliance on programs like
unemployment insurance by helping people to get back to work.
This is the mandate we received from the Canadian people in the
October 25 election. This is our commitment and this is what the
social security reform process is all about.
As the hon. member knows, the minister outlined a process
for reform that will consult widely with Canadians from all
walks of life on these important issues. The process respects the
jurisdiction-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to say that the member's
time has expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)