CONTENTS
Thursday, October 6, 1994
Bill C-282. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6602
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6602
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6621
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6625
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6629
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 6629
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6630
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6634
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6634
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6634
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6635
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6635
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6635
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6635
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6636
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6636
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6636
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6636
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6636
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6636
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6637
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6637
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6637
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6637
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6637
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6638
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6638
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6638
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6639
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6639
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6639
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6639
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6639
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6640
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6640
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6640
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6640
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6640
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6641
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6641
Consideration resumed of motion 6642
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6642
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6646
Bill C-245. Motion of Mr. White (Fraser Valley West)for second reading 6662
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6662
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6668
Consideration resumed of motion 6671
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6671
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6673
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 6692
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6694
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6697
6597
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 6, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of
privilege raised by the hon. member for Roberval last Friday,
September 30, 1994, concerning comments made by the Rt.
Hon. Prime Minister on September 28, 1994.
In his presentation, the hon. member for Roberval claimed
that the replies made by the Prime Minister during Question
Period were contradictory. This, he argued, impeded the
opposition in the discharge of their duties, since the nature of the
answers given by the Prime Minister changed a particular line of
questioning followed by the Leader of the Opposition. Quoting
from Erskine May, the hon. member held that such action
constituted a contempt of the House.
[English]
To support his contention, the hon. member pointed to the
exchanges which took place on September 29 between the hon.
member for Sherbrooke and the President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and the Deputy Prime Minister during
question period, as well as the point of order raised by the hon.
member for Sherbrooke following question period.
The hon. member for Roberval also submitted that, in his
view, as the behaviour of the Prime Minister constituted an
obstruction of the House, the matter should be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the
answers and the behaviour of the Prime Minister could be
reviewed and witnesses summoned.
[Translation]
Joseph Maingot, in his book entitled Parliamentary Privilege
in Canada at page 205, notes that if a member of the House has
admitted to deliberately misleading the House or through his or
her conduct in some other concrete, tangible way has become a
subject of a question of privilege, then that member would
probably forthwith be the subject of a motion for contempt.
Maingot goes on to quote Speaker Michener's famous ruling in
the Pallett privilege case of June 19, 1959. At that time Speaker
Michener stated in part:
Simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to
investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been
charged with an offence.
In his May 5, 1987, ruling at page 5766 of the
Debates
Speaker Fraser said something which is apt in our current
circumstance. He stated:
I would remind the House, however, that a direct charge or accusation against a
member may be made only by way of a substantive motion of which the usual
notice is required. This is another long-standing practice designed to avoid
judgment by innuendo and to prevent the overextended use of our absolute
privilege of freedom of speech.
[
English]
I now want to address the allegation of the hon. member for
Roberval that the Prime Minister's answers misled the House
and whether in the specific circumstances a contempt has taken
place.
[Translation]
I have carefully examined the exchanges which took place on
September 28, 29 and 30, especially during the Question Periods
of those days. It is clear to me that there is disagreement among
members over the facts surrounding the issue. And furthermore,
no evidence has been presented to support the contention that
the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House.
[English]
The chief government whip quoted from Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 31(1) which states:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not
fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
(1010 )
Speaker Fraser noted on December 4, 1986 at Debates page
1792:
Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in
the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.
[
Translation]
There are numerous other rulings, such as those of Speaker
Lamoureux on February 3, 1971; November 16, 1971; and
March 2, 1973; as well as those of Speaker Fraser on June 1,
1987, and finally, December 16, 1988, which amply
demonstrate that this is a long-held view of the Chair.
6598
In light of the arguments put forward and the decisions of
my predecessors, I must conclude that the matter before us is
a dispute as to facts and does not constitute the basis of a
question of privilege.
I thank hon. members for their contributions.
_____________________________________________
6598
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to 11
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House
that the government is taking three important initiatives to fulfil
our red book promises on environmental assessment.
[Translation]
First, the government will proclaim the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. This means that the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency will be up and running in
January.
[English]
Second, the government will publish in the next issue of the
Canada Gazette a complete list of new, greener environmental
regulations required to implement the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. These regulations follow one year of intensive
consultation with the provinces, territories, business and
environmentalists.
In parenthesis I might add that the legislation follows seven
years of intensive consultation. I want to personally thank not
only my parliamentary secretary who has done yeoman's service
in moving a very complicated file forward but also and most
particularly the team headed by Michel Dorais which worked
very hard and very long for many years on this issue.
Third, I wish to advise the House that the government is
proposing three amendments to the environmental assessment
act. The first amendment will entrench in federal law the
principle of one project-one assessment. The second
amendment will guarantee the public the funding necessary to
take part in major environmental assessments. The third
amendment will require a decision by cabinet in response to any
recommendations of independent review panels.
[Translation]
With the new agency, the new regulations and the new
amendments, the government is moving to implement our
election promises on environmental assessment.
The federal government intends to proclaim the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act which was conceived and
developed by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition in the
fall of 1989. When the bill was in preparation, my hon.
colleague said and I quote: ``This law will surely be the best law
of its kind in the world''.
I would like to take the opportunity on this memorable
occasion to congratulate the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean for
his role in the development of this Canadian law. I also want to
commend the hon. member for his support, even during the
recent election, when he said on Le Point, and I quote: ``There is
also the federal government's jurisdiction which must be
respected''.
I await the support of the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean, to
whom the environment is more important than petty
jurisdictional quarrels between different levels of government.
(1015)
[English]
Members on all sides of the House understand that
environmental issues go beyond partisan political bickering.
Members on all sides of the House know that whatever is thrown
into Hamilton harbour eventually finds its way to Sept-Iles,
dans le fleuve Saint-Laurent.
[Translation]
Neither the fish in the St. Lawrence nor the migratory birds on
the Prairies carry passports.
As every Canadian knows, the process of environmental
assessment in Canada has, in the last decade, become mired in
controversy.
[English]
Business is unhappy because the current process has become
unbelievably complicated and unpredictable. Environmental
groups are unhappy because the process is haphazard, arbitrary
and incomplete. The public is unhappy with the current process
because it drags on forever and the public interest is sometimes
lost in squabbling among jurisdictions and various interest
groups.
[Translation]
Today's announcement will change that. We are strengthening
environmental assessment, and we are also making assessment
of projects fairer, less complicated, less costly and more
transparent. The new system will ensure that the environmental
effects of projects are considered before these projects are
approved, will encourage sustainable development and will
require that transboundary issues be considered.
6599
[English]
What we are putting in place are practical and effective rules
that everyone can understand from the start. We are getting rid
of a system where clarity and sometimes lack of clarity have
resulted in many court actions.
We are going to have a straightforward, streamlined
approach. Small scale routine matters will be dealt with through
a simple screening process. Big projects or environmentally
sensitive projects will undergo a comprehensive study.
[Translation]
The new regime introduces the concept of mediation to see if
environmental issues surrounding a project can be resolved to
everyone's satisfaction by consensus.
[English]
For the first time we are introducing the concept of mediation,
in the hopes that some environmental differences might be
resolved by the parties without the necessity of long and arduous
procedures.
[Translation]
These first three steps-screening, comprehensive study and
mediation-will eliminate the headaches and the waste and the
bureaucracy that have resulted in so much time being wasted on
minor or easily resolved issues.
[English]
That means that a project will reach the stage of review by an
independent public panel if there are difficult environmental
issues that cannot be resolved by any other means.
When the environmental impact is important enough to be
subject to an independent public review, the new rules allow for
the public to be fully involved and the new rules mean a more
rigorous assessment of the projects. For all projects we want
everything out in the open and we want to ensure that the public
interest is paramount.
[Translation]
With one of the new amendments, when a review panel makes
recommendations, no individual cabinet minister will have the
power to accept, reject or change those recommendations. Only
the government as a whole will have that authority.
[English]
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recognizes the
importance of federal-provincial co-operation and promotes
harmonization of regimes. I am working closely with the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and with
ministers in each and every province. Indeed over the course of
the last few days I have been in touch with every provincial
environment minister to assure him or her that it is our intention
to work collaboratively. We need to continue a co-operative
approach, a common sense approach to environmental
assessment.
[Translation]
The government believes that the actions I am announcing are
fair and forceful. To be absolutely certain, we shall have a
one-year monitoring program. We want to make sure that the
new law and the new policies do not place an unnecessary
burden on industry. We also want to guarantee that no projects
with significant environmental impact slip through the cracks.
(1020 )
[English]
The new rules recognize the unique and historic
responsibilities of aboriginal people for the stewardship of their
traditional lands. Today's actions give Canada what we believe
is one of the world's best environmental assessment systems.
The whole point is to make the best informed decisions and to
make environmental thinking a fundamental part of the planning
of any project.
The aim is to prevent environmental damage rather than clean
up after the fact.
[Translation]
Sound environmental thinking is essential to international
competitiveness and, even more so, it is central to the legacy we
leave our children.
What we must do now is try to strengthen the environmental
assessment of projects under federal jurisdiction. What we need
to do next is find ways to improve how we assess all new policies
and programs of the federal government. We must, and we will,
clean up our own act. In the months ahead, we shall be
announcing further policies for the ongoing greening of
government.
[English]
It has been seven long years since the Leader of the
Opposition first conceived of the idea of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. My hope is that future actions
to create a healthier environment can come much more quickly.
We need to do everything we can as members of Parliament
and as Canadians to honour our environmental heritage and to
honour our responsibility to future generations. I believe that
today's announcement is a step in that direction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, today the
Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister has
announced a decision by her department that affects all those
concerned with projects that have an environmental impact.
This announcement is consistent with the centralizing approach
that drives the federal government and indeed sustains it.
6600
The minister is preparing to proclaim the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, which would allow the federal
government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This
act, and the related regulations, authorizes the federal
government to block projects that are industrial in nature or that
relate to provincial trade. Once again, the federal government
has gone right ahead and meddled in someone else's area of
jurisdiction. Its cavalier attitude is a sign that this new era of
so-called co-operation is ultimately just so much window
dressing.
When the minister points out that one of the amendments to
the act is the principle of one assessment per project, she seems
to be disregarding the system already in place in Quebec, which
has its own environmental assessment agency. The federal
government's action is all the more unacceptable because
Quebec's assessment process is recognized as one of the best of
its kind. It is credible, well established and has demonstrated its
effectiveness.
Seven hundred and forty-five projects have gone through the
assessment process since 1980. Two hundred and ninety projects
are at various stages of the process and assessments are
completed on twenty-five major projects a year. The
reinforcement of the federal environmental assessment role will
lead to dissension and conflict, sole responsibility for which
will rest with the federal government, the very one who wanted
to put an end to the provinces' vacillation where environmental
assessment was concerned.
With no regard for the process in Quebec and the specific
situation in each of the provinces, the federal government has
stepped in and imposed a uniform system for all the provinces
that adds nothing to what we in Quebec have been doing, with
considerable success, for 15 years now. It is therefore not
surprising that the minister makes no mention of the provinces'
satisfaction with the new regulations being introduced.
(1025)
This duplication, I need hardly repeat, is completely
unproductive. Regulations in hand, the Minister of the
Environment wishes to work with each province towards
harmonization. The question is whether it will be based on
federal or on provincial regulations.
Even more amazing, officials from Quebec and the other
provinces have been working with federal officials for a year
now on a harmonization project designed to define more clearly
the environmental responsibilities of the two levels of
government. These discussions, which are still ongoing, deal
with the environmental assessment process in particular. With
this sort of attitude on the part of the federal government,
harmonization is headed nowhere.
Despite the minister's apparent goodwill, the act places
environmental assessment under federal jurisdiction. There will
be no delegation of responsibilities to the provinces, because a
federal assessment is required, even if one has been done by the
province. At best, an assessment could be conducted jointly
with a province, theoretically anyway, since in practice the
federal government would retain final responsibility for the
process. As it has the right to participate in the appointment of
the chairperson and to determine the mandate of the review
panel, whose reports it wants to see, the federal government has
exclusive authority in this area.
There is therefore a considerable contradiction between the
spirit of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The existing
equivalence agreements allow the provinces to settle certain
pollution problems without the involvement of the federal
government. This will not be the case here. The federal
government is not interested in delegating this authority to the
provinces.
The Minister of the Environment thinks that industry will be
thrilled with this federal initiative. She is quite mistaken.
Last February, the director of the Centre patronal de
l'environnement du Québec denounced the Environment
minister's wish to make the environmental assessment process
more rigorous. This group including more than 50 of Quebec's
largest businesses and some 15 associations endorsed a request
by the provinces to amend the federal law to provide for mutual
recognition of assessments ordered by either level of
government.
The Quebec industry is wary of federal legislation because it
duplicates provincial legislation, which causes delays and can
discourage private sector investment. So it is rather premature
to maintain that the industry will applaud the federal
regulations.
There is no question that the environmental impact of projects
must be assessed in any society. Governments, businesses and
conglomerates no longer undertake major building or
development projects affecting waterways without first
assessing their environmental impact. Such environmental
assessments must be rigorous and methodical with a view to
sustainable development.
However, the federal government's attitude toward
environmental assessments suggests that confrontation with the
provinces is the starting point for promulgating the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act.
If the new regulations to be published soon in the Gazette
officielle du Québec reflect our apprehensions, this government
has shown its usual intransigence and we can only denounce this
practice.
6601
Quebec, which has been a leader in environmental
assessments in Canada and acted with exemplary consistency
and rigour, will thus continue to assure Quebecers of an open,
effective and full process.
From Quebec's viewpoint, the federal minister's initiative
has nothing to do with better environmental management. It
only appears to be an unjustified intervention in an area already
very well managed by the Quebec government. This is another
concrete proof of the federal government's ability and eagerness
to create duplication and increase costs.
(1030 )
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, for those
who are a little bit vague about what the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act really is, it is an information
gathering process. That is really what we are talking about. It is
used to predict potential environmental impacts on future
projects.
The old act was passed by the previous government. However,
it was somewhat like a eunuch; it was there in body but it was not
very productive because the regulations were not there. I am
pleased to see that we are finally getting to the point where we
have the regulations coming down.
The problem with the old bill was that there were a number of
exemptions. Hopefully these exemptions, for example
radioactive waste and exports of oil and gas and hydroelectric
projects, will be covered in the regulations.
It has taken us seven years to get where we are today and I am
really pleased that we are here. I do have some concerns but they
are hard to address because we do not have the regulations in
hand as yet. There have to be clearly spelled out rules on what is
and what is not subject to these rules.
One major problem is the federal-provincial overlap which
the minister has addressed. Until we get rid of this turf war about
whose ground it is, federal or provincial, we will be forever
fighting about what goes on. The Kemano project is a good
example. In some areas people said: ``It is clearly provincial''
and other people said: ``No, it is federal because fisheries are
involved''. This has to be clarified. For example right now
Alberta has an agreement in place but it is really agreeing to
agree. We have a long way to go.
In terms of the process, I understand from the minister that on
minor or fairly simple projects, it will go along quite easily. It is
when we get into the contentious ones that we really get into the
glue.
My riding of Comox-Alberni includes Clayoquot Sound. I
have been part of the process over the last 10 years. It was sitting
on the back burner and then heat started to rise to the point where
it was really boiling a couple of years ago. I was able to watch
the different processes, the round tables, the square tables, the
oval tables. It was open and transparent. However, it became
very clear to some people at the table that the process was not
going to solve their problem, so they walked away from the
process.
We need to have open, clear dialogue. We have to realize that
if the agenda of particular people is not going to be solved and
they walk away from the table that the government is going to
have to step in. That is a double-edged sword because the
previous government ruled that in Kemano no environmental
assessment was required. We have paid dearly for that in B.C.
because we have been fighting for the last number of years.
Business is mad, the environmental community is mad, the
fishermen are wild and the public is confused.
That is what happened by going the wrong way. In the
Clayoquot Sound decision basically the full spectrum of ideas
were there. The provincial government stepped in and said:
``This is where it is''. I believe that was a good ruling.
The government is on tender ground on this one. If it goes to
cabinet after the review that is fine. It would be highly
dangerous if the government then ignored that review and went
off on another track.
In summary, we have to wait until we see the regulations and
really have a chance to look at them because that is really what is
going to make it work. I look forward to having a look at them
and moving ahead.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I am wondering if I could seek unanimous consent of the
House for two minutes to respond as the New Democratic
environment critic and as the critic in the previous House who
sat through much of the creation of Bill C-13. I would like
unanimous consent of the House to have two minutes.
(1035)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased that the Minister of the Environment
has chosen to use Statements by Ministers to proclaim the act
today. I think it is an important use of the House to take this
route today.
I am also very pleased to see that the act has finally been
proclaimed after the amount of time it took in development.
The act has the potential to be the most important
environmental and economic legislation that this country has at
this time. For that reason I was happy to participate in its
development and now to see it proclaimed.
6602
I am disappointed of course that the process has taken so long
to get us to this point but in hindsight it is understandable. We
all knew that the regulatory process was going to slow us down.
It has. We tried to address that in the committee but now that
we have that under wraps, I am happy to see it has moved along.
In addition to the amendments that the minister outlined she
will be presenting to the House this morning I would like to
indicate that I think there is a need to further amend the
regulatory process and involve members of the House and
Parliament to a greater extent than the process. I will be
working to see that that happens.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the minister that in
keeping with her comments about the aboriginal rights and the
stewardship of their traditional land that she consider applying
the new process to the situation in Labrador and the Innu at this
time.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act (medical expenses-disabled senior citizens).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to reduce
income tax for disabled seniors with extra medical expenses.
Under the current law the first $1,614 or 3 per cent of net income
is required to be spent before you can take it into account for
income tax purposes.
This bill would make it possible for all eligible medical
expenses from the very first dollar to be effectively income
deductible for disabled seniors. I believe there is a need to do
that.
While disabled seniors have higher medical expenses than
others they generally have lower income than other people.
Paying out of pocket medical expenses is therefore a heavier
burden for this group of people, disabled seniors, than for
others. This bill is a step in the direction of easing that burden.
In that context I have much pleasure in having the bill
introduced at this time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That notwithstanding any order of the House, the report deadline for phase II
of the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development on February 8, 1994, government business No. 4, be extended to
February 6, 1995, and
That the committee be empowered to authorize radio and television
broadcasting of any of its proceedings.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1040 )
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from several of my
constituents who humbly pray that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way to uphold
the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993,
to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
* * *
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6602
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification) moved:
That this House take note of the progress made to date on the government's
forthcoming reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by
Canadians with regard to this reform.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my
appreciation to House leaders of all parties in the House for their
agreement in helping to organize this first major debate where
we have an opportunity to begin to express our views as
parliamentarians.
I have been a parliamentarian for over 20 years. I have always
had a deep abiding belief and faith that this is the place where
people prevail, not the self-appointed experts and
commentators and people who rush to the mikes before they
read reports. This is the place where people gain their voice.
This is the place where each of us has an opportunity to speak on
behalf of our constituents, who really are what makes this
country work, to go beyond and around and through the
smokescreens and static and noise that we often hear in terms of
the immediate surrounding corridors of Parliament Hill and get
back to where people really have an opportunity to decide.
6603
The debate that we will engage in for the next day or two is
really the first step in inviting Canadians to fully participate.
After all, what we are debating are decisions that affect
themselves, their families, their children, their training, their
jobs, their hopes and their opportunities.
It is not a time to impose top-down decisions, to rush to the
barricades with quick answers, but to really say let us give
people a chance to become involved in a real way and to express
their concerns and aspirations. That is why Parliament is so
important. That is why the parliamentary committee will
undertake this very monumental task. I extend my appreciation
to the members of that committee for the work that they will
undertake over the next several months in crossing this country
and inviting Canadians to become part of the democratic
process.
I hope what we can do today is start that dialogue with
Canadians by reflecting for a moment or two on those moments
that each of us finds as public servants where certain things
happen to us, where we come across an experience, a certain
happening, an event that defines for us what the issues are all
about, that really begins to explain to us what is happening in
our country.
I would like to begin this morning by giving members a brief
account of my own sort of sense of epiphany of that happening
on an early morning during the last campaign when I was
knocking on doors on a very modest street in the Fort Rouge area
of my district. When I came down the street I saw a woman leave
a house with her briefcase and walk out. As I went up to the door
I was greeted by a young man in his early twenties. Behind him
was his wife and a young child maybe seven or eight months old.
Before I got to the normal introduction of who I am he said:
``You don't have to say anything, Mr. Axworthy, I know why you
are here. That woman who just left is my social worker. She
comes to my house every two weeks to check up and make sure I
am living up to all the rules so I will get my next cheque''. He
said: ``I have been unemployed for 18 months and it is driving
me crazy. I have a young family. I want to give them some hope
and I need work to do that. I am going to vote for you this time
because I am putting my hope in you, Mr. Chrétien and the party
to make a difference for me. I know there are no guarantees. I
know there are no easy solutions, but I am giving you a chance to
show what you can do''.
(1045)
Today we are launching what we can do to begin to restore that
sense of hope for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We can
make a difference. We can break away from the tired, old
conventional wisdoms. We can begin to look at programs that
have been in place for 30 or 40 years which served a valuable
purpose but no longer work as well.
We can reach out and talk to those three million Canadians
who presently exist on some form of assistance, be it
unemployment insurance, social assistance, or some other
benefit. They are the ones who really want the change. Forget all
the academics with their foundation grants seen on television
who have the best answers as to how the system works. Talk to
the people who are there now. Ask them if they want change and
you will get 100 per cent approval saying: ``Let's make a
change. It is essential. Let's do something for ourselves''.
That young man in my riding did not want a cheque. He
wanted a job. He wanted a chance to put his talents to work as an
individual. If we write those individuals 100 times or 1,000
times in each community across this country it adds up to a much
stronger nation and then we can say to the world: ``We have the
best trained workforce in the world''. We will attract the needed
investment, create the required new products, and will develop
the innovation we have if we put our trust and faith in investing
in the people of this country. That is what this reform and these
proposals are all about: trusting and investing in people and
giving them a chance.
I hope we will use the debate in the next day or two to draw
upon those experiences of small businesses that want to hire
people but because of a whole series of rules cannot get workers
when they need them. We have a social assistance system that
tells a disabled Canadian: ``You declare yourself unemployable
in order to get a benefit''. We are wasting the incredible pool of
talent of four million Canadians who want to work if they are
given the chance.
Over the next day or two let us talk about the children in this
country. Over a million of them live in poverty because there is
not proper child care, because there are not proper work
opportunities for their parents, because there is no child support
system to make sure the custodial parent does not have to raise
them by themselves.
Let us talk about those experiences we see every day in our
constituencies. Let us break through the fog, the mist and the
smokescreens that have been created by those who have a vested
interest in the way things are. Let us talk to people who want to
change things to make things better and improve our social
security system.
I rise today in that spirit of reform, of change, of looking for
ideas and inviting Canadians to participate. I call on my
colleagues in the House to join in a crusade to attempt to make a
difference. Let us give Canadians the chance to define once
again who they are and what they can be in this country of the
1990s and into the next century.
6604
We do not want things the way they used to be. We are not
living in some nostalgia about the good old days because
nostalgia will not help that young man get a job. Harking back
to the good old days will not restore the opportunity for young
children to get nurturing, proper nutrition and proper care. That
is why we must take up this mission together.
[Translation]
Together we must find immediate solutions for all Canadians.
Canadians are proud of their social security system, but it is
clear that times have changed. Our system no longer meets
requirements; the time has come to take action. Too many
children live in poverty and this reality goes beyond all
jurisdictions. To us, poor children are poor children whether
they live in Gaspé or Medicine Hat.
(1050)
The status quo is not an option. Changes are needed now.
Some people do not want us to do, change or cut anything.
Others ask us to spend more on social programs. We are also
asked to eliminate the deficit. We always have to deal with
contradictory requests.
I think that most Canadians would like us to make
adjustments but to act carefully and intelligently. They want a
new social pact for the coming decades, long-term jobs for them
and their children. I think that our first responsibility as a
government, as members of the House of Commons, is to look
for ways to deal with the problems of poverty and
unemployment.
[English]
We must do this carefully, deliberately, attentively. We must
listen to the great wide voice of Canadians. Those who
recommend we come in with an axe in our hands to chop, cut,
slash and burn are not listening to Canadians. They are not
listening to Canadians who say: ``Reform, don't destroy, don't
break down. Reform, do it with change, have a new blueprint''.
The reason is very clear. There are some sobering new facts in
the Canada of today.
About 10 years ago, before I was asked to go on sabbatical in
the opposition, I was the minister of employment. I have a
comparison as to what was happening then and what is
happening now. When I was minister of employment about 10 or
12 per cent of those who were on unemployment insurance used
the system frequently, every year. Today over 40 per cent of UI
users are on that program virtually every single year.
That clearly demonstrates something has fundamentally
changed in the workplace. It is not simply a matter of a few
people abusing the system. It means there has been an
underlying revolution in the way people work in this country.
Many of our traditional industries no longer provide the same
employment opportunities. They are declining. People are being
caught up and are being washed away from the mainstream.
That is why we must make changes. We must help them find
ways back into the employment market, find ways back into the
labour market. We must equip them with new tools. That is why
simply having a benefit program and writing a cheque every
month is not sufficient. People need to have opportunities to
become more literate, to learn French, English, or mathematics
so they can begin to understand the new kinds of work.
All of us get our cars repaired. Have you looked under the
hood of your car recently? No longer is it a simple carburettor
with a little gas and air going through it. Now there is a computer
attached to it. People in the car repair sector say there are 10,000
jobs missing in Canada because we do not have trained
automobile technicians with the skills to adapt to that new
technology now found in our automobiles.
People ask where the jobs are. Jobs are lost in this country
every day because we simply do not have the people to pass the
test. Yet on the other side of the ledger there are hundreds of
thousands of Canadians who want to work but do not have the
skills or abilities to pass that test.
People have said to me: ``I saw somebody last night from one
of the social groups who asked where the jobs are''. Last year
170,000 people came into Canada under our immigration
program on an employment authorization because there were
not sufficient people in this country with the skills we require
for our economy.
People I recently met with in the software industry said there
are 15,000 potential jobs in this country in the next five years
but Canadians are not trained to meet those jobs. At the same
time people say: ``Don't put a cent into training. Don't transfer
resources into where it really counts. Keep people on
unemployment insurance''. Is that what we really want? Is that
the hope for Canadians, to stay on UI year after year? Or do we
want to say to them and their kids: ``We are going to give you
some hope and a chance to get a job that really means
something''.
(1055)
In the unemployment insurance system there is an interesting
figure we should pay some attention to. Last year 14 per cent of
the companies were responsible for close to 40 per cent of the UI
payouts. That means that over time because of the existing
system a variety of companies, both public and private, have
used the UI system not to help people get jobs or make a
transition but simply to pad the payroll.
A whole series of layoffs are designed to meet the duration of
benefits under the unemployment insurance system. There is a
massive cost subsidization taking place from one industry to
another, from one region to another. They are basically saying
that does not help the other regions develop their economies.
6605
It creates a reliance upon the system and people say: ``If we
can get 30 or 40 weeks, if we can lay off our workers for June
and July-which many school boards do-and we can save
some money, then let us do it''. What they do not say is that
some person down the street, perhaps a short order cook in a
restaurant, is paying a premium every week to pay for that
layoff when it is not necessary. That is not fair. It kills jobs.
As a result, we have seen the premiums double or triple in the
last six or seven years.
Is that the kind of system we want to protect? Is that the kind
of system those who say not to touch the programs want to
maintain, a system that does not reward work but rewards
dependency? I do not think Canadians want that. They want us to
take a different look at things.
Let us take a moment to look at the whole question of another
change going on in our country. Fifty per cent of the jobs over
the next five years are going to require a post-secondary
education. In fact, statistics over the last year indicate there was
a 17 per cent growth in jobs for people who had a
post-secondary education or better. On the other side of the coin
there was a 19 per cent loss of jobs for those who had less than a
post-secondary education.
In the meantime we continue to see dropout rates of 15, 20, 30
per cent depending on the region. Young people who know they
are facing a radically different workplace and require radically
different skills are dropping out of school. They will become the
next generation of people who find themselves pushed to the
sidelines.
One of the key issues is how to increase those opportunities in
accessibility. That is what the green paper talks about. It talks
about that re-equipment. We are saying if we can look at the
unemployment insurance system, take money that is exclusively
paid for benefits and turn it into an employment service fund,
then we can offer those people a chance to go back to school, a
chance to become literate, a chance to get good counselling, a
chance to have a job corps for older workers, a chance once
again to put their talents to work.
We are jointly funding an experiment in New Brunswick. It is
the New Brunswick job corps for older workers. Up to now a
seasonal worker in that area had no hope, especially when there
was no more seasonal work when forestry declined. Now we are
putting close to 2,000 workers into reforestation. We are
rebuilding the natural resource, creating a wealth and resource
base for the next generation. People involved in that project say
that once again they have a reason to put their boots on in the
morning. They have something that gives real value to what they
are doing. That is why we need those resources.
We are saying very clearly in the paper that this will give us an
opportunity for new partnerships. As much as we are talking in
the paper about changing the programs we are also changing the
way government should work. We are saying that the most
effective role of government is to put resources into the hands of
people and let them make choices. We have an opportunity to
develop new partnerships with the provinces, business, labour
and local communities.
(1100)
Two weeks ago I signed agreements with representatives of
the North York Board of Education, Niagara Community
College, labour and business representatives in the electrical
industry. We are putting up 25 cents of every training
dollar-not a full dollar like we pay in other places-which is
matched by the employees, employers and the province to
provide new apprenticeship places for close to 300 or 400 young
people so they can begin getting those new skills.
That is what I mean by partnership. That is what I mean by
decentralizing decision making. That is what I mean by once
again giving people a chance to make decisions in their own
communities: by decentralizing the system, by government
working in a different way as a facilitator, an enabler, by
breaking down the bureaucracies, the hierarchies and by once
again restoring at the local level, the business level and the shop
level the chance to make decisions for your own
self-improvement, your own self-sufficiency.
That is what this paper is all about. It is about a new way of
governing that gives real power to people. It is not power to
bureaucracies but real power back to the people to make
decisions for themselves.
[Translation]
Some accuse us of taking a centralizing approach. I would like
to know what is the basis for that assertion, what page of the
document are they referring to? I will tell you what page. On
page 27 of the green book, we undertake to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each level of government consistent with the
Constitution. On page 40, we propose transferring funds and
responsibilities to the provinces.
On page 61, we give the provinces the possibility of opting out
in the fields of education and student assistance. On page 73, we
propose making social assistance legislation more flexible in
order to finance Quebec's APPORT program and relinquish
decision-making authority to that province. On page 76, we
propose a block fund for social assistance to give the provinces
more control and flexibility.
Throughout the document we talk about co-operation, about
opting out, about flexibility and decentralization. These are not
the words of a centralizing government but the characteristics of
a new, dynamic federalism.
6606
[English]
Let us focus for just a moment on how that applies to the area
of higher education. I have heard certain members wax eloquent
about how this is some form of intrusion. It shows that they
neither know their history nor have read the document.
Since World War II the federal government has supported the
educational efforts of the provinces. We did so because, as the
national government, we recognized that good education is one
of the foundations of a good economy. We also have to ensure
that there is equity in all parts of Canada; that a student in
Newfoundland gets the same treatment as a student in Ontario or
British Columbia. We also recognize that the provinces which
also have a responsibility would need support to expand the
system to ensure that there was opportunity.
For example we spend close to $1 billion on student
assistance. At the present time, with the clear right to opt out, we
would simply transfer the funds and the provinces would
implement their own system. Quebec and the Northwest
Territories have availed themselves of that. We also have a
transfer system that was established in 1977 where we transfer
moneys to the provinces by tax points and by cash.
What is happening under the existing rules that have been in
place since 1977? As the revenue to the provinces grows because
of the growth in the economy and the population, they get more
money, they get more revenue. It is an invisible endowment
from the federal government to the provinces to help them with
education. It is a permanent commitment to support them.
(1105)
Some provincial treasurers may not be prepared to admit it,
because they keep getting $200 or $300 million more every year
in additional revenue. That is okay. We made the deal. The
corollary is that as the revenue goes up with the tax points, the
cash begins to go down because on a constant basis there is an
escalator clause.
Under the existing rules we could see the reduction of those
cash transfers over the next 10 years. That does not mean a loss
in revenue because the revenue to the provinces is going up at
the same time. It means that the cash directly attached to
students and others disappears into provincial treasuries.
We are saying that before we let that vacuum exist, before the
money disappears, before it is reduced, let us see if we can do
something creative. Let us see if we can do something to
substantially broaden accessibility for students across Canada.
Let us recognize that tuition rates have been going up every
single year under the existing system by 10 per cent per year.
They have doubled over the last five years across Canada.
Students need some help to meet that problem.
We also have another major issue. People who are presently in
the workplace do not have any financial assistance to go back to
school. They do not have a program for them. Unless they are on
social assistance or UI there is no training assistance. They have
great difficulty getting eligibility for university.
They want to go back to school. The woman today who is a
seamstress has a dream of becoming a fashion designer. A car
mechanic may want to become an engineer. It is our job to help
them do that. We are facing continuous learning. That is why we
are saying before the cash transfer ratchets down year by year,
let us take hold of it and use it to lever another $3 billion back
into higher education.
Let us put a lot more money back in the system. Let us make a
much broader, wider system of grants and loans available to
students of all kinds everywhere. They can get access to our
system on a basis where they can repay the money according to
income. It would not be like the present system where they repay
like a mortgage system with flat rates regardless of what their
income is or if they have income or not, but they should pay
according to their income.
That to me is a proposition. It is an idea that we want to place
before the provinces. If they want to opt out of that new system
that is their business. We clearly say in the paper, even though a
few have not read it, that if the provinces want to do it they have
the right to do it, no arguments. Let us do something to
substantially broaden accessibility for young people.
Let us broaden accessibility for people in the work force. Let
us give every Canadian a chance to be continuous learners
throughout the course of their lives and therefore substantially
enrich and broaden the wealth and experience and knowledge of
this country as a whole.
We also have to take a look at the social security system. Once
again it seems that people have forgotten their history slightly.
We have a cost shared system. The Government of Canada pays
about $5 billion for tax benefits directed to children. We also
have about $7.7 billion that is cost shared with the provinces to
help them pay for their social assistance programs.
One of the problems is that over the years a whole system of
rules has built up. The rules say that if somebody on social
assistance wants to go back to work, have their chance at a
job-it may be a minimum wage job, a starting job-we ask that
we tax back 75 per cent of their income. They are only provincial
rules, but under the Canada assistance plan rules, we do not
permit provinces to invest in learning, job creation, training as a
result of CAP.
It may have been a rule that made sense back in the sixties
when social assistance was only dealing with a small proportion
of the population, but we are talking about three million people
now. We are talking about half of those on social assistance
being employable. We are not talking about the most vulnerable
6607
who have no opportunity at all. We are talking about half the
people on social assistance, people who are employable if they
are given a chance, if they are given some support.
(1110)
That is why one of the key proposals in our paper is to provide
new flexible rules so provinces can begin to establish their
programs to enable people to go back to work. Over the summer
we have been signing a series of strategic initiatives with six or
seven provinces in a spirit of co-operation to provide them the
ability and the resources to innovate.
In my province of Manitoba we have a new program for single
parents where they will run the program, not the bureaucrats or
social workers. They will have their own centre where they will
develop their own child care programs, their own training
programs, their own employment programs. Once again it is
based on the principle of decentralizing, putting resources in
people's hands, working in partnerships.
In Rimouski a couple of weeks ago we, as the federal
government, became a partner with a women's group, Ficelles,
the local CEGEP, and the local regional development authority,
to provide a new centre of resource for women on social
assistance to create their own jobs, to create their own
employment, to start their own businesses.
Once again we have presented a new principle. It is not the
federal government, not provincial government landing on top
of them. We are partners with them in the small town of
Rimouski where we have said to these women that they will be
responsible for their own development and we will give them
resource and help.
[Translation]
We will make job creation easier. We will make it easier to
develop new approaches to job creation. This is the way the
government should work in the future.
[English]
That is why we proposed changes in the way we deliver our
social security system and in particular to look at the way the
rules apply to those with disabilities. Why should they have to
declare themselves as unemployable. Just think of the enormous
number of job opportunities there are out there for people who
have incredible skills but have to sign a piece of paper saying
they cannot put any of that to use.
Disabled organizations across the country are saying that
benefits should be split from social services and something
different should be done. We are putting that on the table for
discussion with the provinces.
Our own vocational rehabilitation program is one way of
getting away from the sheltered workshop and into giving
resources to individuals to make that change.
Similarly, we say this is an opportunity, and maybe the most
important opportunity, to come together as a country to take care
of children. Let us begin to mobilize all resources; federal
government, provincial governments, business, labour,
community organizations, people that say they are no longer
prepared to accept a million children living in poverty.
Let us give ourselves a goal to bring the provinces together in
co-operation to bring that level down 30, 40, 50 per cent in the
next 10 years. Let us really go to work.
Through the proposals in this paper there is a way, partly by
giving their parents a chance to work. The best way of dealing
with child poverty is a job for the parents. Give them the
resources to find that job. Break down the rules that prevent
them from getting jobs. Create work out there that they can find.
Another way we present in the green paper is the new program
of child support. We can work again federally and provincially
to make sure that those parents who have been separated and no
longer receive support from non-custodial parents have a much
tougher enforcement system. If that does not work let us take a
look at the program now being introduced in other countries for
a minimum basis of child support and let government help
people to get those payments back. We could reduce our social
welfare costs by 10 or 15 per cent if we had a decent, effective
support system.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, within a matter of
weeks will be presenting the results of federal-provincial
discussions to initiate a new child support system and I hope all
members here will support that initiative.
Finally, we must also look at how we can begin to put together
a program or a system that will enable us to provide an income
base for children partly because they do not receive enough. The
combination of federal-provincial benefits does not give
children enough support.
There is an interesting conference this weekend, Prime
Minister, that I know you are interested in, where we have
groups of child specialists from across the country who have
clearly established the connection between early child
development in the first couple of years, and what happens to an
adult later on.
(1115 )
We can directly relate nutrition to bad health when we are
adults. We can directly relate nurturing and support to problems
in the court. When we have great arguments in this House about
getting tough with young offenders, we should start with
children who are two or three years old because many of them
are not getting it due to lack of income.
6608
I recall meeting with people from the National Association
of Food Banks. I asked what is the one single thing that we can
do for children in this country. The answer was get some more
money in their hands. That is why we have to combine those
benefits and go to work to do it.
I understand this will not be easy. We have to really rely upon
full scale co-operation by all levels of government. That is why
we will be appealing to our colleagues. For those governments
that say they do not want to participate they are condemning the
children of those provinces to serious problems in the future.
They are creating problems for the future. That is why it is going
to be so essential that we spend the next couple of years
mobilizing a good will and tapping into the potential for
goodwill which I think exists in this country. I think Canadians
want to help their kids. I think we have now come to a
recognition that it is time we made this a national priority.
This government will take the leadership with our provincial
colleagues to put that first on the agenda and make sure that the
next generation of children will not suffer the same problems as
this generation of children.
That is the point of this debate. That is the reason for getting
ideas out and getting a dialogue going. I welcome them. I do not
expect everyone is going to agree with us. I would be surprised if
they did. However, there are some good examples.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I have been around for 30
years.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): I always agree
with the Prime Minister.
Bob White, head of the Canadian Labour Congress, put out
what I thought was a positive statement. He said: ``I do not agree
with parts of the report. I take exception to some of the issues on
unemployment insurance, but I am prepared to engage in a
constructive debate. I am prepared to put my ideas and those of
my membership on the table''. That is the right spirit, not total
rejection, not angry rhetoric without substance, not the kind of
posturing that we see from so many who say we cannot do
anything.
Mr. Silye: Not cheap shots.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Not cheap shots.
That is a good example. I am glad the member from the Reform
Party said that because I saw his leader on television last night
who had a string of cheap shots, one after the other. I hope he
will pass this along.
Before I conclude, let us deal with one other very important
element of this proposal which is this clear linkage that exists
between proposals for social reform and how it affects the
broader economy.
The Prime Minister announced in Quebec City about two and
a half weeks ago that this is one part of a broad national agenda
the government wants to put forward. In about 10 days or so the
Minister of Finance will be putting forward a paper on
economic growth and fiscal requirements. That will be followed
by another paper by the Minister of Industry concerning job
creation and how to stimulate private sector growth and activity.
They are all linked together. They are all part of the same effort
to get people back to work and to restructure the fundamentals of
this country.
In doing so, that is one reason why we also have to address the
fiscal reality of the country. For those who simply say do not
make cuts and do not touch the budget, they are not living in the
real world. We all know that everybody has to take a hard look at
where we spend the money. The Leader of the Opposition said
that he does not believe we can do more with less.
I suppose having been a member of the Mulroney government
for nine years I can understand why he would have that
philosophy. It did less with more. That was its problem. I hope
the Leader of the Opposition will be able to overcome his
particular disadvantage having been nurtured under that
government which when he participated did not have social
reform in an open participatory way but did it by stealth. Does
the member of that government recall that he was responsible as
a member of that cabinet for major slashing of the
unemployment insurance program, clawbacks to senior citizen
pensions, major changes on higher education, all of those? Now
he is the great defender of the status quo. No wonder, look at the
status quo he created. Who wants his status quo?
(1120 )
Talk about a leopard changing his spots. How about a leopard
with all kinds of coloured spots, you never know which one
defines who the leopard is; change parties, change spots, change
positions, change philosophies. It does not matter. It is a new
interchangeable system that we are in these days.
What we are saying very clearly, and it is outlined on page 23
of the book, is that there is a fiscal parameter that we have to
work with. In the February 1994 budget it stated that we would
make changes to unemployment insurance which would realize
$2.2 billion in savings which we have recycled back into other
programs and into reducing the premium to create jobs in this
country.
We also announced that we would hold transfer payments at
the 1993-94 level and that would gain a saving of $1.5 billion.
We are already talking in the area of $5 billion. We made that
very clear. I have indicated that as a result of these changes that
we are proposing in the paper, a restructuring, I would like to see
another target of 10 per cent in cuts in unemployment insurance
so we can again use the money to create the literacy programs,
the educational programs, the training programs, the job
employment programs and the reduction of premium programs
so that we can get Canadians back to work. We have said that
very explicitly, very clearly.
6609
The one question that we cannot answer yet is what is the
result of the program review. The Minister of Finance has set
targets for every department. The Prime Minister has said every
department will have a program review. We are all looking at
how we can eliminate duplication, how we can eliminate waste
and how we can change programs. There is a lot of it to be done.
That is one reason why I think that we are prepared with
provinces to do a lot of guichets uniques, to co-locate, to
eliminate a lot of excess. We are working with provinces now.
There is money to be saved.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have signed an
agreement with every one of them but one.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): That is right. That
is one reason we have put on the table a new labour market
agreement with the provinces which talks about transferring
responsibility, which talks about rationalizing programs, which
talks about transferring money for training to the provinces so
that we can provide a much clearer definition of responsibilities.
We can save money on that but the decision has not been taken
yet.
That is why we have a consultation, a budget process that will
start with the department of finance, a committee of finance, a
consultation on social review, and those decisions will be taken.
When they are taken we will make them clear. We will make
them public. We cannot announce what we have not decided.
I know members opposite sometimes do that. I know they like
to speculate. There is even the odd newspaper reporter or two
who get into that sort of frenzy, saying: ``I think I know what I
believe'', and therefore prints on the front page of a newspaper.
The fact of the matter is we believe that we have to have as
part of this exercise a recognition and a responsibility to have
fiscal stability in this country. If we do not, then what is clear is
that our social policy decisions will not be made by Canadians.
They will be made by bond dealers in New York. They will start
telling us.
Right now if we look at the expenditure pattern, we spend
close to $40 billion on these programs that we are talking about
and about $40 billion on the interest. If we do not make changes
in the programs and reallocate in 10 years time we will be
spending $50 billion on interest and $29 billion on social
programs. I think all Canadians regardless of political stripe
recognize that something has to be done.
That is why we are prepared to try to face up to those
responsibilities in a clear, sound way, not by simply saying take
$15 billion, slash every program in sight, do not try to reform,
do not try to make them better, simply cut the programs. That is
not the way to do it. Canadians did not elect us to do that. They
elected us to use our intelligence and our creative powers to
make better programs, not simply to break down existing
programs. There is a major difference in that approach.
Those are the options and choices that we have in this green
paper. That is the kind of discussion and dialogue that we have to
begin to generate beginning today in this House, to show
Canadians that we can face new realities, that we can use our
best creative powers to come up with better ideas, that we are
open and listening and that Parliament is the real forum for this
country. It is the crucible where these kinds of answers and
solutions will be found, not in the think tanks, not in the interest
groups, but here in Parliament where we represent the people.
We can do it right. I fully expect that there will be some
difference of opinion. I do not know whether the debate today
will immediately result in a consensus but if it does not then I
hope we will have those differences expressed in the most
constructive way possible, in a way that really gives people a
sense that Parliament can work positively, progressively,
constructively and not simply become a forum for going after
one another.
(1125 )
That is the kind of spirit that we have to create. I am going to
use a story that I have used many times. I see that the members
from the Reform Party are getting impatient. I guess they do not
like staying in Parliament too long. There is no problem in the
future for that, four years and they will be gone.
This is a little story that really summarizes what I hope will
infuse the spirit of debate in this House and throughout the
country. It happened in New Brunswick where I visited a small
training program for women on social assistance. It was set up
jointly by the federal and provincial governments.
I was talking to the women in that program and asked them
how it was working. One of the women said: ``I was not too sure,
it is darn hard coming back to school but after five or six months
I realized how important it was because a couple of days ago, I
was able to help my seven-year old daughter with her
homework. For the first time I was able to show that we were
now able to work together as a mother and a child''.
She said: ``I wrote a little saying. I hope that you will tell
other Canadians how important it is. As a result of the kind of
experience I have had here'', the kind of thing that we are
promoting in this green book, an effort to find new ways of
getting people some hope and dignity, ``never be afraid to reach
for the moon because even if you miss, you will be among the
stars''.
6610
Today, with this green paper we are asking Canadians to
reach for the moon.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, no one in the Official Opposition is denying the need to
do something to help out those of the less fortunate of our fellow
citizens, who are in difficulty.
The current economic and financial situation has driven these
people to live in fear and anxiety and, in that sense, I am in full
agreement with the minister's diagnosis.
I think that when it comes to being sensitive to the situation of
the disadvantaged, the minister has retained his progressive,
left-wing tradition. The problem is that the cure is a right-wing
one. While the diagnosis is left-wing, the cure is right-wing. I
am not saying that the minister's heart is not in the right place,
on the contrary. The problem is that his wallet is not in the same
place, as a Liberal minister. Now that he has become minister, he
finds himself in a peculiar situation, stuck between a Finance
Minister and a Prime Minister whose primary objective is to
reduce the deficit and the debt on the backs of the
disadvantaged.
Take this speech for example. If you take away the rhetoric,
finer feelings, hand on the heart, you realize nonetheless that the
official objective of the minister, as stated in the first pages of
the consultation paper, is to cut social program expenditures, to
effect the massive cut all right-wing circles, all employers and
all the business community have been wanting to see for a
generation. And now this minister with a progressive
background has been chosen by the right to do the job.
Here is this minister who just related to us, with sincerity I
think, how sad he felt when, one morning, as he was going door
to door visiting constituents in his riding, he met this young
couple in which the man was out of work and the woman was
also at home. The young man told the minister how much he
wished in himself that changes could be made to improve his
situation, to help him find a job in particular.
But besides sympathizing with this young man's difficulties,
should the minister not have told him: ``Look, I sympathize but
my government is about to cut $15 billion in social expenditures
over the next five years''?
(1130)
If the minister had wanted to be straightforward with this
young man, that is what he would have told him. He should have
informed him that, in addition to the $7.5 billion in cuts already
announced in last year's budget, more cuts are planned, which I
will discuss later.
How can one make a progressive-sounding speech, how can
one claim to base social program reform on a desire for
expansion, after having coldly decided to cut $15 billion over
five years in the funds allocated to social programs? I am not
making this up; the minister has described very clearly right
from the beginning, on page 23 of the discussion paper, the
context in which this reform is to take place. He very clearly ties
it to a budgetary transaction, a spending-cut exercise.
Let me quote two excerpts from page 23: ``Reform of social
security cannot be contemplated in isolation from the fiscal
realities facing governments in Canada''. And a little further:
``And existing expenditures must be brought under control and
in some instances reduced''. There it is in black and white.
We all heard the budget speech, in which this minister's
colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced a $2.4 billion
reduction in social expenditures, in particular unemployment
insurance expenditures. It was also announced in the budget that
the upcoming social security reform was going to take place as
part of an expenditure reduction plan.
I think it is obvious that this exercise lies within a framework
of spending cuts on social programs. In fact, when you read
through the document and get to the essential and sectorial
aspects of the reform, you note that the underlying motivation
throughout is to reduce the level of protection afforded to those
in need.
Worse yet, in my opinion, is the philosophy behind the
minister's approach. This is evident from, first, his attitude
regarding the unemployed. Perhaps not for the minister, who
would gladly do the opposite of what he is doing, but for his
government at least, this attitude is expressed in the paper
before us: the unemployed are guilty. Here we have a
government going through a financial crisis, as we know.
Everyone agrees that we are facing some kind of public finance
mess, a mortgage on our young people's future, a burden already
weighing down adults in their daily activities. With the deficit
almost out of control as it is, it is obvious that the government is
confronted with an enormous problem and that it is aware of it.
So, expenditures have to be reduced. The deficit must be
brought under control. How? By looking for someone to blame.
Why are we facing a crisis? Why, in a rich and highly
industrialized country like Canada, blessed with so many
natural resources, a hard-working population and lots of capital,
does the federal government find itself in such a position? There
has to be a culprit. Maybe it is the government, which spends too
much on its operations. No, says the Minister of Finance, it is
not the government's operating expenditures. But we know that,
in fact, there are billions of dollars to be saved there.
Is the problem this overlapping between the various levels of
governments, the duplication of programs and the waste of
energy and resources? No, the government is not trying to save
one penny in that area either. A tax reform might be in order. Do
we have a consistent and rational tax system? Should it not be
reviewed, harmonized and drastically changed? For example,
6611
should we not eliminate unfair tax irritants? I know that there is
not enough money to be saved there to solve the problem of
public finance, but the issue of family trusts is a bad symbol for
taxpayers. Tax shelters which continue to benefit rich Canadians
do not represent an astronomical amount of money, but they are
important symbols in terms of tax fairness, at a time when the
government is asking all taxpayers to tighten their belt. Yet, the
minister did not see anything wrong there either.
Instead, the minister sees the culprits to be those who will be
targeted by his measures, namely the unemployed and the
poorest, who are already the most affected by the current crisis.
This, in my opinion, is the most unacceptable side of the
philosophy underlying the minister's approach.
(1135)
The other attitude which I find just as despicable is this belief
that the unemployed are unemployed by choice. The
government seems to think that Quebecers and Canadians who
are currently unemployed, who suffer from anxiety because they
are without work, who feel they are losing their dignity as
citizens, fathers and mothers, and who are losing hope about
their future, live this situation by choice. The government seems
to think that what these people need is a good scare to force them
to find work. This is what is so unpleasant in the minister's
attitude. Why is that? It is because no jobs are being created.
There is nothing in this agenda to make us think that the
government will implement job creation measures. There is no
employment policy. Yet, that word is everywhere in the
document. But it is a euphemism used to conceal the reality and
the reality is that there are no incentives to promote job creation.
This government has no creative spirit; it has not made any
effort and it has not allocated any money to generate some
enthusiasm in Canada and in Quebec to put people to work and
to create jobs. No. It seems that those without jobs are in that
situation by choice, because they are lazy.
The minister thinks that by making their plight even worse
and by making these people even more distressed, he will force
them to find jobs. But those jobs simply do not exist and that is
the fundamental flaw in the minister's reform and philosophy.
On the subject of philosophy, let me quote an unbelievable
principle stated on page 26 of the discussion paper. It says: ``A
social security system that is financially unsustainable is a dead
end. Therefore, social security reform must in part entail
making difficult choices about the best use of available funds''.
With that statement, the government is introducing a new
concept for social programs designed to help people with special
needs: cost effectiveness. From now on, social programs will
have to be cost effective.
This is what the discussion paper is all about. The minister is
trying to ensure cost effectiveness, not as regards government
programs, operating expenditures, taxation or inefficiencies
resulting from overlapping, but in social programs.
Government management is not cost effective, but the
unemployed will have to be, even though they have no jobs.
There is another aspect of this document, and its spirit, which
is truly unacceptable. It is the fact that this whole exercise is a
sham. The government is not being honest. Let me give you two
obvious examples. First, the minister, who was supposed to
prepare an action plan, decided, even if it will take longer,
perhaps a year, to hold consultations. Consequently, he drafts a
so-called discussion paper, which he is careful not to label a
policy statement, so as to always be able to argue that nothing
has been decided and that this is still the consultation stage.
It contains some unacceptable things that will make people
jump. So when questioned in the House or by journalists or in
consultation sessions where people get excited and upset and
concerned, he is prepared to say, ``Do not worry. These are not
decisions; this is only a consultation. I will listen to what you
have to say and take it into consideration; then a decision will be
made.'' That is how the discussion paper is presented.
In fact, thanks to a leak published in the Toronto Star
yesterday, we now know that this minister and his colleague in
Finance have already decided, regardless of the outcome of the
``consultation'', that a further $7.5 billion will be cut from
social programs within five years.
That is particularly odious for the people, the members of
Parliament, the media and everyone who will be involved in this
vast phony consultation. Yes, members of Parliament can go for
five weeks throughout Canada to hear people's grievances,
suggestions and reactions to this document, this ``discussion
paper''; members of Parliament can go around, political
commentators can comment, the poor can always hope, MPs can
always talk, but the decision has been made.
(1140)
Whatever happens, whatever people say about these
consultations, a further $7.5 billion will be cut and no one on the
government side has denied it. It took a fortunate leak, I would
say, from the Toronto Star for us to learn that this cut has been
decided. Furthermore, it was also decided to keep it secret. The
leaked Cabinet document shows that the two ministers got
together secretly, shut the door and swore that this decision
would remain secret and that they would hide it, letting people
naively believe that this document is only a discussion paper.
6612
[English]
I remember a sentence which has been credited to former
President Theodore Roosevelt. I think he said it in a speech:
``Speak nicely, speak sweetly, but carry a big stick''. I think the
minister should be associated with the same sentence. Maybe
change it a little: ``Speak with compassion, but carry a big
knife''. That is what he is doing in this exercise.
[Translation]
That is the first deceptive thing: the decision has already been
made. The kind, intelligent, friendly minister will attend many
consultation meetings and listen to people, pretending to take in
what they say. He may take notes when people tell him not to cut
this or that, but the minister will have to keep himself from
laughing when he thinks that the decision has already been made
and he is faced with the credulity of people who will fall for the
consultation exercise.
The other deceptive thing is the minister's incredible
distortion of the words ``decentralization'' and
``centralization''. The minister tells us: ``This is an exercise in
democracy. The federal government is sometimes accused of
being distant and remote from the people, preoccupied with
overly theoretical matters; the federal government will get
closer to the people, it will establish direct contact with them, it
will become populist. We will now have a populist federal
government, something like what the Reform Party wants. A
government that will get closer to the people, issue cheques
directly to them, establish bursary programs that will issue
cheques directly to them and will dictate standards for welfare,
and when it comes to occupational training, will select programs
with local groups, municipalities and individuals; a government
that will democratize and decentralize.'' That is how the
minister describes what he wants to do.
What is actually going on? In fact, the federal government has
decided to do without the provinces. I remind the government,
which tends to forget, that this country has a Constitution
established by the founders 125 years ago as a framework for
how this country should run. The founders of this country and
their successors realized that it takes two levels of government,
one to look after things that are closer to the people and which it
is better placed to do so, namely the provincial governments,
and the federal government to look after foreign affairs,
defence, the currency and so on. That was the spirit which
guided the Constitution that is binding on everyone.
Now the minister wants us to believe that the federal
government is in a better position than the provinces to manage
social problems, to look after problems in people's daily lives,
in education, in health, which will come later, as we shall see,
and especially in social welfare.
So as I was saying, the terms are being misused because what
the minister is actually trying to do is to centralize. He is trying
to reduce the provinces' role to an insignificant contribution to
community life. He wants the federal government to run
everything, to so dominate that the provinces will be unable to
stop it from centralizing.
Behind this plan is the desire to redefine the federal
government's role for the future. Finally the masks are falling.
Clearly, the federal government intends to take the provinces'
place in fields reserved to them by the Constitution, as they were
always meant to be.
(1145)
For example, you can see that this government is trying to
sideline the Quebec state which is such a thorn for Ottawa. It is
done in an underhanded way which I find very disturbing. We
will have to keep this in mind while reviewing this proposal in
the House today, tomorrow and in the weeks to come.
Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to briefly go over
three or four particular elements of the reform as they relate to
specific target groups. Let us start with unemployment
insurance. The minister gives two options, clearly stating where
his preference lies. One of the options is totally unacceptable, he
tells us, since it would mean cuts everywhere. In other words,
what he really means is that there is no choice, we have to
choose the second option because the first one is simply too
horrible.
He is asking us to choose between pneumonia and
tuberculosis. Well then, let us reject tuberculosis, that leaves us
with pneumonia. What kind of pneumonia? It is the second
option, the one preferred by the minister, that is to say a two-tier
system, one for people who are out of work occasionally, not
very often, maybe even never, that is to say a regular system and
then, there will be another one for people who are often
unemployed. For those who are nearly never out of work, the UI
program does not change. They may never need UI benefits, but
they will still have to pay premiums, probably at a higher level,
since there will be a ceiling put on them.
The other tier will deal with people who really need
unemployment insurance and for whom it was originally
created, namely unemployed workers, the real ones whom the
minister so tactfully calls frequent beneficiaries. These people
are going to get less. They are going to be forced to work for
community action programs. They may even be forced to go
back to school.
Benefits are going to be lower, premiums higher. It will not be
much fun to be unemployed once the system is revamped by the
minister. People will be so unhappy, things will go so badly for
them, they will be so worried that, or so the minister thinks, they
will go out and get a job, a job that does not exist. The truth is,
those who are really in need, those who are most vulnerable are
getting squeezed. This is where the minister is going to cut and
get the billions of dollars he needs for the finance minister.
6613
Who is going to be hurt? Who is the most often out of work?
Young people fresh out of school are having a difficult time
finding work. Single mothers, seasonal workers, people over
50, people my age who suddenly find themselves unemployed
after 25 years in the same job and who do not know what else
to do, these are the people who are going to be hurt by the
minister's reform.
Beyond the tactful language of bureaucrats using such
incomprehensible terms as adjustment programs and frequent
beneficiaries, what we must read is that those who really need
unemployment insurance, who depend on it, will from now on
be virtually cut off from it; their benefits will be lower and they
will get less coverage.
Women are another group which will get hurt. We all know
how hard they had to fight and must still do to reach a minimum
of financial independence, since you cannot have equal
opportunities without financial independence. What do we find
in the minister's reform? He will tell us that it is only an idea, a
strange idea for sure; as a matter of fact, he wonders why it is
even in there. It could not be his doing, it must come from one of
his officials.
People will reject it, but we know full well that things have
already been decided. If a woman loses her job, her husband's
income is taken into account to determine whether or not she
qualifies for UI. As we know, men usually earn more than their
spouses. Women who lose their jobs are treated as second class
citizens, they will be penalized for having a husband who makes
money. They will receive either no UI benefits or significantly
lower ones.
This is a clear case of discrimination. I believe that if this was
to be challenged in the Supreme Court under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, it would be ruled unconstitutional. Then
there are the students. The minister went after them with a
vengeance. He must really hate them to treat them the way he
does in his reform. Let us look at Quebec. The situation is even
worse in the rest of Canada. They are talking about cuts in
federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary
education to the tune of $2,600,000,000. Due to a complicated
formula, that means that Quebec will get $300 million less; bear
in mind that it is a lot worse in other parts of the country.
(1150)
But for Quebec, $300 million means quite a shortfall for
post-secondary education programs. The minister himself
admits, with rare candour, that these cuts will probably lead to
higher tuition fees. According to some quick forecast, they will
probably double. If Quebec gets $300 million less for
post-secondary education, the government and universities will
have to double, some say even triple, tuition fees. And it will be
worse in the rest of the country. If Canadian students think
things are tough now, wait until they see what this reform means
for them.
The Minister has recognized that it will create somewhat of a
problem. That is obvious. For example, tuition fees at Laval
University in Quebec city are now $3,000 and will easily rise to
$8,000 with this reform and the impact will be disastrous for
students. The Minister says they will find a solution, they will
lend money and implement a grants and loans program so that
we can help students who will have to put up with the increased
tuition fees. What does this mean?
It means, for example, that under post-reform conditions, a
student going through law school, as I did, will leave the
university owing the government approximately $25,000. And
that will be one debt among others because the student will have
to borrow elsewhere to buy a car or for other reasons. For a Ph.D,
the debt load will easily reach $50,000.
It means this reform reopens the whole issue of accessibility
to higher education for students who are not wealthy. In Quebec,
we have been fighting for equal access for twenty years now. I
know it is the same in the rest of Canada. For twenty years,
people have been fighting for a system ensuring equal access to
higher education. There was a time in Quebec when only the
chosen few could attend university or obtain a Bachelor of Arts
degree. Only those lucky enough to be born in a rich family had
access to that. The others did not study, there were no schools for
them. Only wealthy families could send their children to
university. Twenty years ago, we changed all that. We fought a
social battle and we invested considerable funds. That is one
thing we are proud of, it is one of the great achievements of
Quebec and the federal reform proposed by the Minister will
bring us right back to the starting line. Only rich people, sons
and daughters of wealthy families, will have the opportunity to
attend university if a program such as this one is implemented.
What is even worse, what adds insult to injury is that Bill
C-28 dealing with the Student Loans Program, a bill we fought
against vigorously, a bill the Bloc Quebecois denounced, but
one that was adopted in spite of everything because we had a
majority against us in this House. Bill C-28 extends the
implementation of the standards the federal government can
impose upon provinces wishing to withdraw from that Student
Loans Program. From now on, a province withdrawing from the
program must implement a new program in all points similar to
the federal program. In other words, because Bill C-28 was
adopted, on top of restricting access to higher education, this
reform will give the federal government the power to determine
who will study and what they will study in each of the provinces,
including Quebec. The federal government will be in a position
to dictate standards and design curricula by controlling those
who want to study.
6614
This is a very real danger from what I have seen by perusing
briefly the reform document we received only yesterday. You
can say the Minister surely has devised other solutions to give
students access to education. Yes he certainly has. He suggests
they use their RRSPs to pay for their schooling. He suggests
that students pay their tuition fees with their RRSPs. How
fantastic! One must be a complete stranger to reality to imagine
that RRSPs would be an alternative for students. I know very
few students who own a RRSP. For that, you have to be part
of a rich family or one who owns a family trust.
You could reply that perhaps the Minister meant the parents,
that perhaps he will convince the Minister of Finance, who plans
to tax RRSPs, to allow parents to use their own RRSPs for their
children's education. I see two main problems there. RRSPs
were not designed for such a purpose. They were meant to
ensure a certain financial security to families, to middle-class
people who work, so that they can have at least a minimum
security for the future.
(1155)
So if, out of their generosity, because parents always want the
best for their children, parents are forced to use their RRSPs for
their children's education, of course children will get a higher
education, but the parents will no longer have a retirement fund.
That is the kind of situation the Minister is creating for families.
Furthermore, we must admit that not everybody owns a RRSP.
One has to be able to afford it and, again, that applies to a chosen
few. So it is absolutely incredible that they would propose the
RRSPs as a solution.
An hon. member: They are laughing to our faces.
Mr. Bouchard: Right! They are laughing at us.
Let me conclude. The intention of the Minister and of the
government goes far beyond this social reform. The Minister
wants to change the position of the federal government in
Canada, to restructure the relations between the central
government, the provinces and the people.
When the Minister says they will create direct links between
the federal level and the citizens who will take advantage of the
various programs, manpower training programs for example,
when he says they will deal directly with local stakeholders,
communities, municipalities, businesses, etc., he is in fact
saying they will go over the head of provincial governments. So
he is truly asking the most fundamental question. The question
he is asking is the fundamental one.
What the minister and the government are telling us with this
reform is that there are too many levels of government, one too
many in fact, the provincial level. They are telling us Quebecers
that the redundant level of government is the one in Quebec City
and that, from now on, Ottawa should manage everything.
I do not know what people in other provinces think of all this,
but we should know shortly when our friend, the Leader of the
Reform Party, takes the floor to give his view on the reform.
However, I doubt that provincial governments across Canada
would accept to bow down and make way for the imperialistic
and centralizing aspirations of the federal government.
For us in Quebec-and I do not speak solely for sovereignists,
but for all Quebecers-the main entity is the Quebec State,
which we used to call the province of Quebec. It is this
government that we want to entrust with the power to make
fundamental decisions regarding the future of Quebec,
regarding the definition of policies which will shape our soul
and identity, regarding the design of education programs,
regarding the relationship between social and job-creating
measures, because without any close tie between the two no
reform of social programs can succeed, and this is the main flaw
of this reform. It cannot tie what needs to be tied, it cannot make
the gears mesh together. There is no synergy, no cohesion. The
definition of social programs must tie into a definition of job
creation, but the reform does not do that. It would be possible
only in a nation where there is a single level of government, and
this is why the minister wants a single government, he wants to
seize the powers he does not have to complete his reform.
In Quebec, we want the same thing. We want a government
which will make all the decisions that concern it, a government
able to mesh social demands and job creation. We want a
cohesive state, a machine that works.
[English]
I would like to conclude with this. It appears to me that this
reform is trying to achieve the reshaping of Canada, to achieve
some kind of hegemony for the federal government wherein the
provincial governments would have a very limited role, a policy
which would state that the federal government would stamp the
instructions.
For example, it would be possible for the minister to make
sure that social and economic policies would be meshed
together so as to produce a synergy, a coherence. It is not
possible now; we all know it. The minister has in front of him
provincial governments, and in Quebec a very strong provincial
government determined to defend its position.
This government would like to push the provincial
governments aside. To me and to those in Quebec it means that
the message is that there is one government too many in the
country and that this government would like to have only one,
the federal government. We in Quebec believe that it should be
one government in Quebec.
6615
I do not know exactly, but it might be that the rest of Canada
would like to reshape its relationship with the federal
government.
(1200 )
It might be that there is a fundamental need in the rest of
Canada to redefine social programs in a way which would go
along the lines of the minister. I am quite ready to respect that. I
think we should let them do it, but they should not impose their
views on Quebec because we have different views.
It appears to me that if the minister has his way with the
cabinet and the government party, and if this reform is enacted,
if we have the additional cut of $7.5 billion announced in the
Toronto Star yesterday, it means that we are due for a long and
historical confrontation again.
The Prime Minister will ride again as a federal fighter against
Quebec and we will have a long, very negative, unproductive
fight between the two levels of government. We in Quebec are
not ready to do that again. We have gone through that for thirty
years now. It would be unhealthy to begin again.
I think we should respect our different orientations. We
should be able to sit down and recognize that it is a law of nature
and necessity to accept that we go our way. That is my
conclusion.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to express on behalf of my colleagues and millions of
Canadians profound disappointment in the social policy
discussion paper tabled by the minister in this House and
presented to Canadians.
The government has been in office for almost a year. It
promised an action plan to reform Canada's frayed and
overburdened social safety net. I remind the House it was an
action plan that was to have resulted in legislation this fall.
Instead it has produced a discussion paper listing various
proposals without any clear plan of action by the government to
meet the very real needs of the young, the old, the sick and the
poor, without any clear commitment on the part of the
government to get to the root of the problem of any real reform
in the social safety net.
As a discussion paper the document is severely flawed
because the options it offers are limited and vague and because
there is no information on the costs of proposed programs. Since
affordability under the current circumstances is a key criterion
the absence of price tags and detailed cost estimates vaguely
undermines the discussion paper's usefulness as a consultation
document.
What is so tragic is that the real discussion of social policy
and social reform has been going on in this country for years
among ordinary people, among taxpayers, among certain
academics, among the victims of the systems, among real
reformers, but not among Liberals.
The federal government is not really in a position to lead a
discussion on social reform. It simply needs to get in on the
discussion which is already far advanced. Since the
government's social policy review falls so far short of what was
promised and expected, it falls to other members of this House
to do three things.
First, we need to make clear to the minister what is
unacceptable about the current operations of social programs in
Canada. We need to spend some time on the unacceptability of
the status quo. Second, we need to enunciate the principles of
genuine social reform that should be applied to the hodge podge
of proposals in this paper, principles that would form the basis
of a real action plan in the months and years ahead. Third, we
need to challenge the minister to address the root of the problem
in reforming the social safety net, namely the over
centralization of power and responsibility in Ottawa.
(1205 )
Allow me to respond to the minister's proposals under these
three headings. First, on the unacceptability of the status quo,
Canadians are committed not just in their heads but in their
hearts to helping their fellow citizens in need. In a country such
as ours it is simply not acceptable for children to be growing up
without adequate food, housing, care or education.
It is not acceptable for senior citizens to be living out their
years with inadequate care and resources. It is not acceptable for
sick people to wait on longer and longer hospital waiting lists
for fewer and fewer hospital beds. It is not acceptable for
hundreds of thousands of able bodied working Canadians to be
chronically unemployed and underemployed.
It is not acceptable that the billions of hard earned taxpayers'
dollars that Canadians generously provide to the three levels of
government every year for social spending are so mishandled
that the basic needs of individuals and families are not met. It is
not acceptable that the government respond to the needs of today
by forcing the cost on to the Canadians of tomorrow through
massive public borrowing. Growing public debts only
contribute to the impoverishment of future Canadians.
Finally, it is not acceptable for a government that has been in
office for a year to respond not with an action plan but with an
inaction plan that will at best serve the government as an excuse
for further delays. It is not acceptable that the paper fails to
provide the cost estimates that are essential to a meaningful
discussion. It is not acceptable that the major areas of social
policy, including old age pensions and health care, both of which
are in deep financial trouble, are being put off to some future
date. It is not acceptable that legislation flowing from the
discussion paper may take years to reach the House.
6616
I want to impress upon the minister and his colleagues the
unacceptability of the status quo.
Let me turn to principles of real reform. Allow me to list three
principles of real social reform which would allow us to separate
the wheat from the chaff in this paper and to separate those
proposals which merely perpetuate or tinker with the status quo
from those which would really meet the needs of the young, the
old, the sick, the poor or the unemployed.
The first principle, social spending, in particular transfers to
individuals, should be targeted to those among us who are most
in need. Universality, where universality has come to mean that
the taxpayers should pay 100 per cent of the bills for social
services 100 per cent of the time regardless of the resources
available or the financial status of the individual being served,
should be abolished as a principle in the design of social
programs. This traditional definition of universality is a Liberal
invention whose wastefulness has ensured its extinction.
Traditional universality should be replaced by the principle of
universal access to public support provided a real need exists
and can be demonstrated. In days gone by the principal objection
to needs based public support was that it required individuals to
complete a means test. Today with the universality of the
income tax form, targeted social spending is administratively
feasible as well as desirable from a policy standpoint.
The grab bag of proposals that the minister has presented us
with includes a couple of items that pay lip services to targeting
social benefits to those in need such as the proposal for a
targeted child benefit. However, if the minister were really
serious about targeting social spending he would have included
in his discussion paper figures and charts to illustrate how much
of social spending is currently being transferred to people in
various income categories including people who do not need it
and how that social spending should be retargeted.
The Reform Party has conducted scores and scores of public
discussions on targeted social spending. This is hardly a new
subject, but the public is not stupid. In such meetings it asks
hard questions: ``Show us the current distribution of
government transfers to individuals and households for OAS,
for UIC and for Canada assistance. Who gets what? What
households at what income get what benefits? Only then can we
tell you whether the current distribution is fair or wasteful or
needs to be tipped more to those in lower income brackets''. We
cannot have a proper discussion of targeted social spending
without that data, yet the minister's paper fails to provide those.
(1210)
The second principle, social programs should be financially
sustainable. Social spending overall should be on a pay as you
go basis, not continually financed through deficit spending. This
means that the current levels of social spending must be reduced
since the federal deficit cannot be eliminated solely through cost
cutting in other areas of spending. Continued deficits simply
impoverish future Canadians and ensure their dependence on an
unravelling social safety net which is not financable in the
future.
Transfers of wealth from better off Canadians to those who
are truly in need are clearly well supported by Canadians but
transfers from future Canadians to current Canadians through
public debt are not, nor are inefficiencies and wasteful uses of
taxpayers' money, nor are fraud and abuse.
In some cases the tax system should be used to recover all or
some of publicly funded financial assistance provided the
persons or households whose income levels exceed specified
levels. This could include, for instance, relatively well off
individuals who temporarily receive benefits between jobs.
If the government were serious about ensuring the financial
sustainability of social programs it should have done two things.
First, the discussion paper should have included the cost of the
various alternatives and should have compared those with the
cost of existing programs. Its failure to do this is the biggest
single flaw in the document.
How can Canadians have meaningful discussions of
alternative proposals when they have no idea of what they will
truly cost?
The minister is still not adjusted to the fiscal realities of the
1990s. It is the 1990s, not the 1960s. It is irresponsible in the
public arena and particularly in this Chamber where we are
spending $110 million more per day than we collect in revenues.
It is irresponsible to propose anything, any policy option,
without answering the three basic fiscal questions, what will it
cost, where will you get the money, and why do we not spend
less.
Second, the government should have established clear
spending priorities, not just for social spending, but for the
entire federal government. I have to wonder where those
priorities are when the government proposes ending federal
funding to post-secondary education while still spending
billions of dollars to subsidize businesses, special interest
groups and crown corporations.
Finally, in questioning the commitment of the government to
financially sustainable social programs I note the absence of any
clear plan to target and reduce social spending by the amounts
required to meet the government's own deficit targets.
6617
The third principle, the meaning of social needs should be
personalized, privatized and decentralized so that individual
families, communities and lower levels of government, not the
federal government, are the primary actors. The best way to
determine and respond to real needs is through empowerment
at the personal family and community level. Big programs
managed by central governments are enormously inefficient at
getting the right help to the right people at the right time,
enormously wasteful of taxpayers' resources and generosity.
Shared jurisdictions and shared cost programs must be
eliminated. They lessen accountability for results, reduce the
incentive to be cost efficient, breed bureaucracy, reduce
flexibility and inhibit the application of common sense.
The patchwork of overlapping rigid bureaucratic social
programs must evolve toward a single access point, enabling
people in need to seek assistance through the empowerment of
individuals and community oriented caseworkers. The
empowerment of individuals and families is to be particularly
encouraged because such empowerment reduces dependence on
the state.
The distribution of federal transfers in support of education
through vouchers is to be encouraged because it empowers
individuals. The strengthening of families through more
generous tax credits for the support of children is to be
encouraged because the family is better able to meet the needs of
children than any government. The single biggest cause of child
poverty is family breakdown. To reduce child poverty,
strengthen the family.
The delivery of social services by the level of government
closest to the people and most responsive to the people, most
accountable to the people, is to be encouraged. This requires
recognition by the federal government that it is not now, nor has
it ever been, nor will it ever be, the government closest to the
people.
(1215)
The minister said in his statement earlier today that he has a
commitment to decentralization. It is to be believed because it is
written down in this green paper. The two pages he mentioned
incidentally are dividing pages, just dividers.
Why should the provinces or anyone believe that assertion of
commitment to decentralization because it is written in this
paper when it is written in the Constitution of Canada that the
responsibility for health, education and social assistance
belongs to the provinces? That has not deterred the federal
government from involving itself in centralizing programs in
those areas through the use of its spending power.
If the government were really serious about decentralizing
social programs, empowering individuals and freeing them from
the iron grip of bureaucracy, it would have included specific
options for turning over more responsibility, not just entering
into administrative arrangements, for program delivery to
communities, private organizations, and other levels of
government.
I might add that in no area is the unwillingness of the federal
government to decentralize power more evident than in the field
of health care which is not even discussed in this paper. The total
health care bill for Canada last year was $70 billion. Of that total
48 per cent was picked up by the provinces and local
governments, 28 per cent by individuals and by private
insurance companies, and less than 24 per cent by the federal
government. Yet it is the federal government that presumes to
dictate the terms of service and financing in the health care field
for all other players, a position which prevents rather than
facilitates genuine health care reform.
The federal government professes to be just a partner in health
care. In reality it has become a junior, junior partner. But it
always acts like the senior partner which is why the provinces
and the public are so sceptical about government's professed
interest in new partnership arrangements.
In conclusion I want to spend a couple of moments on getting
to the root of the problem in social reform. I challenge the
minister to reveal to the House the real reason he has presented a
discussion paper rather than an action plan.
The reason is that he has been unable to reach substantive
agreement with the provinces, the governments to which the
Constitution assigns primary responsibility for health,
education and welfare, the governments without whose support
and co-operation meaningful social reform is impossible.
I challenge the minister to reveal to the House the real reason
he has been unable to get the co-operation of the provinces in a
substantive way. The reason is that his government is committed
to status quo federalism, that his government and his leader are
not committed to a rapid and substantive decentralization of
power, particularly in the areas of health, education, social
assistance and social insurance.
Until the federal government does become committed to such
a decentralization, most of which can be done within the
existing Constitution, I predict that status quo federalism will
lead to nothing but the perpetuation of an unacceptable status
quo with respect to Canada's social safety net.
Who will lose? It will not be the political elite and the special
interests that support and feed off the current centralized
system, but the young, the old, the sick, the poor, the
unemployed, the taxpayers of today and the taxpayers of
tomorrow.
6618
My colleagues and I intend to challenge the minister to play
catch-up ball, to move beyond vague discussions to real
reform. We intend to challenge the minister to provide a
detailed cost analysis of any options he proposes and set the
social spending priorities. We cannot have a discussion without
that material.
Above all, my colleagues and I intend to challenge the
minister and the Prime Minister to get to the root of the problem
of reforming the social safety net, namely 30 years of
overcentralization of the power and responsibility for meeting
social needs in the hands of the federal government.
(1220)
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Mr. Speaker, investing in people is the
government's number one priority in this exercise of social
security review. It is stated:
In the economy of the 1990s, it is information and knowledge-based
industries that are providing the foundation for jobs and economic growth.
Canadians must have the skills, opportunities, and knowledge to meet the
demands of the new job market.
This is directly from the red book. By Canadians we mean all
Canadians: aboriginal peoples fighting against the odds; youth
making the transition from school to the workforce; sole parents
balancing family and employment needs; women and their
children struggling; and Canadians who find themselves in
transition between jobs, some for short periods but many and
frequently for too long are displaced out of their jobs; and
displaced older workers looking for hope in the form of a new
opportunity, perhaps a new job. These are the Canadians we
promised to help in the red book.
These goals have not changed and we are now looking at how
best to achieve them. The discussion paper released yesterday
gives Canadians a chance to debate what is necessary, what is
possible with the resources available to us. Our government has
identified employability as a fundamental goal of social
programming. As the National Anti-Poverty Organization has
correctly noted, the best social security for an individual is a
decent job paying decent wages.
The response has been swift to the document tabled. I must
say I have had the opportunity to meet with some good people
this very day and over the last day or so who have responded. I
met this morning, for instance, with Jonathan Murphy of the
Social Planning Council of Edmonton. I quote what he said:
We are supportive of the emphasis on training and breaking the cycle of
unemployment. There are 40,000 children in Edmonton growing up in poverty.
The extended child benefit program will help them. We must maintain national
standards for a social safety net. We have a real fear of separate agendas which
would undermine national goals for Canadians.
These are the expressions of people. I have also had the
opportunity to meet with the aboriginal leaders because we are
engaging in and embarking on a process for the aboriginal
people by which they will participate. We are working hard to
achieve a process they all agree to.
Having said that, we now know that technological change has
altered the look of a decent job beyond recognition. Consider the
future that lies before a young woman of 18. Perhaps she is just
starting a community college program this year. Can anyone
predict the skills she will need in the workplace of the year
2030? Of course not. What we can predict is that her education
will not end when she graduates from college. She will need to
keep learning. In fact the means to social security is not simply a
job today; it is the ability to get a job at any one point in anyone's
life. That depends on developing and enhancing skills all
through life.
Let me go to what the leader of our country has to say on the
whole issue. In Quebec City on September 18 the Prime Minister
outlined four key components of the government's job and
growth agenda. Quite clearly we cannot operate in isolation on
any massive reform and expect to have the answers to all the
questions. However, listen to this. The first is reforming social
security. The second is ensuring a healthy fiscal climate. The
third is reviewing government programs and priorities. These
sound like some of the things the government is undertaking,
quite clearly. The fourth is strengthening the performance of the
Canadian economy in investment, innovation and trade.
(1225)
Members should know that the Prime Minister is embarking
on a trade mission to China with a delegation. These are things
he has stated and these are things we are living up to on a daily
basis. We are working hard to draw in the support and
confidence of all Canadians.
Not only are we undertaking government programs, services,
and reviews of policies, programs and services, but we are
essentially appealing to the public to build the confidence, the
trust, to ensure that we do not engage in empty evangelism, that
we do not create false hope and that we are in fact doing things
that will result in substantive moves for people to improve the
quality of their lives.
With the time available to me in the debate today I want to
focus on how large a part of social security reform evolves
around learning for children, for youth, for adults; learning in
our cities, towns and most isolated communities; learning for
everyone; and learning for life.
Everyone here understands that learning is the key to
employability. The willingness to work hard no longer
guarantees a job. The fact that a person has an education is no
longer a guarantee, but it is better than having nothing which
guarantees nothing, almost for sure, no opportunities.
Competition from other countries and automation have ensured
that the new jobs in our economy demand a higher and broader
set of skills. People who stop their education early limit their
employability. People who keep learning improve it.
6619
Since the second world war federal contributions have helped
build and operate an extensive and accessible system of
post-secondary education. This government has continued
those efforts.
In April we launched our youth employment and learning
strategy. One element of the strategy was a series of
improvements to student aid. How did we improve the Canada
student loans program? It was, first, by increasing the weekly
loan limits for full time students by 57 per cent; by raising the
ceiling on loans for part time students to $4,000; and by creating
opportunities, special opportunities grants that will provide an
extra $3,000 to single parents pursuing their studies part time.
For students with disabilities and women in Ph.D. programs
we will be offering a national program of deferred grants for the
first time that will help high need students who would otherwise
face extremely high debt loads on graduation. At the same time
we realize that the educational status quo has problems.
The traditional distinctions between community colleges and
universities tend to raise barriers that may no longer be relevant.
We need to examine the way in which learning is structured and
the support available.
Having mentioned the status quo, I cannot emphasize enough
that we know the status quo is not an option, that things cannot
remain the same. Whatever our political stripe, whatever our
concern or constituencies, we know as a country that we have an
obligation to look at change. We have to be able to change things
so that every Canadian who is drawn into the debate and every
Canadian who benefits from the debate will know that we have
done the right thing by not burying our heads in the sand and
turning away from the greatest opportunity to have courage to
change for the country, to change for the people, to change for
poor children, to change for the people who are unemployed
cyclically, to change for the people on intergenerational
unemployment insurance, intergenerational poverty laden with
social assistance. It is a very difficult situation.
We cannot avoid the opportunity to have the courage and the
vision to engage in a debate in earnest with no hidden agendas,
with no weasel words or sneakiness, to go out there and ask the
people and consult with them; not to prescribe, not to come in
with an ironclad and iron fisted approach that says this is our
way and this is the way we are going to do it. The way we want to
engage in this debate is to be honest and open and to appeal to
the public to recognize that there has to be an opportunity to
make a difference with their consensus and with their
consultation.
(1230)
We have received a great many letters from people who have
told us just how difficult the idea of turning lifelong learning
into reality can be. For many, of course, the issue is money. The
discussion paper offers ideas to fund post-secondary education.
It considers the method of improving access for people who
want to upgrade their skills. It recognizes that we have a role in
supporting post-secondary education. We must continue to do
so.
The discussion paper recognizes that the federal government
provides core funding for the post-secondary system through
tax points. As members will recall the budget earlier this year
called for the federal government to reduce cash transfers. We
have already told the provinces and territories that funding for
post-secondary education will return to the level of $2.1 billion
in 1996 and 1997. It might best serve the public to know what we
spend money on.
Quite clearly federal expenditures on social security
programs should be stated as such. We spend a total of $38.7
billion. We spend $12.4 billion on UI regular benefits. For UI
developmental uses we spend $1.9 billion. Employment
programs, the consolidated revenue fund has $1.4 billion. For
vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons we spend $0.2
billion. Child tax benefits, $5.1 billion. The Canada assistance
plan yields $8.2 billion. Canada student loans $0.5 billion.
Post-secondary education, established programs financing,
$6.1 billion. UI administration $1.2 billion. UI maternity,
parental adoption and sickness benefits $1.7 billion. This of
course does not include seniors. The review we are talking about
excludes a whole section.
Something else the public might find extremely interesting is
that under the social assistance to heads of households we have a
listing of percentages. Those people who are unemployed but
are employable, who would work if there was the opportunity,
are 45 per cent. Lone parents constitute 28 per cent. Disabled 20
per cent and others 7 per cent. These are statistics that I think
people need to be aware of in dealing with the whole issue of
reform. People want to know where the money is going and what
it is being spent on.
One thing we should also make the public very aware of is
very clearly and simply the objectives for the reform stated
clearly here in this document. The first is jobs, helping
Canadians get and keep work by ensuring that they have the
knowledge and skills to compete with the best labour forces in
the world, support for those most vulnerable, those who feel that
we are undertaking this reform on the backs of the poor.
Hear me now. In this document it is stated that we would
provide support for those most vulnerable. That of course
includes the poor. Providing income support for those in need
while fostering independence, self-confidence and initiatives
6620
and starting to tackle child poverty. Affordability cannot be
avoided. Making sure that the social security system is within
our means and more efficiently managed with a real
commitment to end waste and abuse. This quite clearly
addresses some of the concerns that have been stated to date. It
has not been long but we have had some response.
How can we make the best use of this money? Broadening
student access and the whole issue of learning. Broadening
student access is the best way. Tuition fees by the provinces and
territories have moved the cost of education back to the
students.
The paper offers an interesting option, end the cash transfer
for institutional support quickly and expand student loan
opportunities instead. We estimate that a $500 million student
aid program would make accessible $2 billion in loans every
year. The target for that money could be older students who want
to add to their skills and people who want to retrain as well.
There are other options to help finance their education. For
example, another idea that is being tossed about is using the
moneys accumulated in registered retirement savings plans.
Another option is the income contingent repayment plan.
(1235)
Many of us have heard from constituents who have graduated
but who are having a difficult time repaying their student loans.
People are not reluctant to contribute to their own well-being, to
their own promotion and their own development. However, they
want to engage in a process that will be simpler, more equitable,
fairer and more reasonable. We agree with that. We think that
there is a way that can be done and we want to hear from people
about that. If they have found work it may not pay well enough
initially to make ends meet. That is a major concern.
Income contingent repayment works well in Australia and
New Zealand. It permits people to repay their loans on the basis
of their incomes. They also permit the use of limited public
funds to meet emerging priorities. Partnerships with the federal
government and the private sector are key to this approach.
These options improve employability on the base of a shared
responsibility and shared contribution.
I understand that the time for debate is not as long as we would
all like so I am going to skip over to some of the things that I feel
are really essential. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at
engaging in a process with the aboriginal First Nations group.
We need to establish a process that we all agree to. We continue
to do that but I think something that we really need to emphasize
is the role that my constituents play.
I, like any other member in the House, have a constituency,
the Northwest Territories. We have a post-secondary education
system of learning called Arctic College. If you ever want to
tour the college campus you will have to bring your mukluks or
your sneakers, Mr. Speaker, because the campus is three million
square kilometres. It is spread throughout the north. My hon.
colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, knows only too well how difficult and how long it
takes to traverse and how inclement the conditions can be up
there.
That brings me to the reason for this reform. I have had the
opportunity to discuss with the aboriginal peoples. Each of these
objectives, as I stated initially, is going to meet the needs and
priorities of aboriginal people if we have a process that they can
engage in. Aboriginal peoples want education and training
opportunities like all Canadians. As the situation stands now,
the aboriginal unemployment rate is approximately twice the
Canadian average rate. Almost half of all aboriginal adults have
incomes of less than $10,000.
According to the 1990 aboriginal peoples surveyed, the social
assistance dependency rate for registered Indians on reserve was
over 41 per cent. The dependency rate for registered Indians off
reserve was 57 per cent. The dependency rate for the population
as a whole for Canadians other than aboriginal populations was
only 7 per cent.
The aboriginal population is very young. Its birth rate is twice
the Canadian average. Among the Inuit 43 per cent are under 15
years old. In recent years strides have been made in improving
education for this young population. The good news is that we
have resolved to do something about the problems that we have.
There are many partnerships being forged and many efforts
being undertaken by First Nations themselves. The number of
status Indians enrolled in post-secondary education institutions
nearly doubled in the five years between 1986 and 1991. This is
an overall increase of approximately 22,000 students who are
currently in post-secondary education, according to my
colleague, the minister of Indian and northern affairs. That is
something that we are all proud of and we all want to continue to
make work effectively.
(1240 )
The enrolment of on-reserve children in kindergarten,
elementary and secondary schools has increased from 72 per
cent of school age children in 1960-61 to 91 per cent in
1990-91. The federal government's head start program will also
create a unique opportunity. We will see the positive results as
healthier, stronger and more confident aboriginal children
entering their school years. However, much remains to be done.
No segment of the Canadian population faces a more glaring
need for effective social policy measures, enhanced
opportunities, reducing barriers, investing in people, addressing
specific individual and community needs than does the
aboriginal population.
6621
The government has taken a number of steps to assist in
developing and assessing the implications of social security
reform for aboriginal peoples. The objective is to establish an
inclusive approach in consultation an in co-ordination with
aboriginal peoples.
We will be participating and ensuring-myself specifically,
along with the minister and the government-meaningful
aboriginal involvement in the social security reform process in
the upcoming months. Social security reform can provide
aboriginal peoples with a unique opportunity to foster effective
delivery of social services that will have an immediate impact
on their communities.
The governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories for
instance have launched a strategic initiative to help social
assistance recipients. Investing in people will provide them with
counselling, career and employment development, life skills, on
the job experience and education.
By creating opportunities and reducing dependency, we can
work toward building upon the hope and promise of Canada's
youth, both within and outside the aboriginal communities. I
commend the Government of the Northwest Territories for the
steps they are taking to help northerners to better themselves.
They have undertaken their own track and I am sure they will
integrate their views into this.
I would like to conclude by saying that this is not just about
one Canadian, one organization, one special interest group. This
is about the direction in which our country will go. This is about
the way we want to see the quality of life affected for every child
in this country. This is about the way that we as a a government
want to reinvent the direction in which government goes to serve
the public, to serve every Canadian.
This is the way we want to balance those elements we have all
talked about from all sides of the House. It is about jobs, about
affordability and about vulnerability, not to avoid the people
who most need our help, but to provide reform for all of our
country and for every Canadian. We welcome their
participation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask a question to the hon. member in her capacity as a woman
and as the status of women critic. I would like to know what she
thinks of the Minister's proposal that unemployment insurance
benefits be reduced and based on family income in the case of
the frequently unemployed.
We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and
part-time jobs. I would like to ask the member if she does not
see these measures as being regressive for women's financial
equality.
Another aspect of the Minister's proposals suggesting that the
benefits be based on family income is that a woman's benefits
will be subordinate to her spouse's income. Does the hon.
member not feel we are still treating women as citizens of-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I want to remind
colleagues that following the interventions by member we are
subject to a 10-minute question or comment period.
[Translation]
With your permission, would the hon. member please be good
enough to repeat her question. I will not count the time.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the
hon. member thinks as a woman and as the status of women
critic. I would like to know her opinion on the minister's
proposal that unemployment insurance benefits be reduced and
based on family income in the case of the frequently
unemployed.
(1245)
We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and
part-time jobs. Is the hon. member not of the opinion that these
measures would bring women's financial equality backwards?
I would also like to hear the views of the hon. member on the
Minister's proposal that the family income be taken into account
when establishing the level of benefits. Does she not think it is a
regressive measure showing that women are still second class
citizens?
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon.
member took the opportunity to ask a question. She makes
remarks about the unemployment insurance changes proposed
and also about family income and support.
Those are subjects for debate and consultation. Those are
matters on which we are asking the public to give us their views.
We are engaging in a public process. I am sure she has her own
specific views.
I would like to allow the public to make up its mind. I will be
dealing, as I indicated, with aboriginal women, friendship
centres, the four national aboriginal groups, northerners,
Canadians from all parts of the country. I will be meeting with
people in Kamloops tomorrow. I will be listening, as should the
other parties be listening to the public.
I mentioned in my speech this is not prescriptive. We are not
going to tell people what it should be. We want to ask them for
their responses to the proposals we have put out there.
6622
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I know there will be consultations, but nevertheless,
members on the government side do make proposals.
We heard speeches by the hon. member and the Minister. We
would like to know, since I imagine they have a very clear
position on this, what the hon. member thinks of the proposal
that women's unemployment benefits could be based on their
spouse's income. Could the hon. member tell us what she thinks
of that? Does she agree or not with the fact that from now on
women would no longer be treated as equal to men because,
since their spouse would have a higher income, their benefits
would decrease? If we ask Canadians for their opinion, I think
they will want to know what their representatives think of these
proposals.
As the hon. member is also a Cabinet member, I suppose she
participated in the discussions and she surely has an opinion on
this measure. I do not ask for her views on the other points, but
only on this particular one. What is her position? Does she
approve of that proposal?
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, as the elected member
for Western Arctic my constituents will know, as should my
colleague, that I have not had the opportunity to go across my
constituency to consult with them.
I will be having a town hall meeting next week and will be
able to come back to the member and tell him, I am sure, there
are divergent views on what has been proposed. There will be
peculiarities to different people that have certain opinions about
the proposals that we have put forward.
My view is that we are looking for opportunities for all
Canadians. Not all women and men have spouses. For those who
have that question will be dealt with when we have concluded
the consultations.
I am not going to get drawn in on a broad, massive move that
the government has taken on one issue. I am going to allow the
debate to proceed and keep my opinions to myself until I have
democratically consulted with my constituents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I am not
surprised that the member was unable to answer, or even to
defend what is in the document which is supposed to be a
discussion paper, because the provisions which the member for
Quebec has referred to are totally unacceptable. That the
government even thought that unemployment benefits for
women could take the family income into consideration is
totally unacceptable and a step backwards that the entire
population, for that matter, would certainly not let happen.
(1250)
Since January, the government has been trying to convince us
that there was an emergency in this country. It did not talk about
that during the election campaign, but suddenly, in January, the
minister of Human Resources Development announced that
what was most pressing, most urgent for the development of
Canada and its future was a social program reform. A wide
reform which should extend to the whole country.
What has happened since that time? The committee on human
resources development was given a mandate to consult
Canadians on their views. The committee was expected to table
its report quickly, on March 25, so that the minister could put his
work plan on the table as early as April and the legislation could
be passed swiftly in the fall, in order to finally address that
urgent problem.
Surprise! The committee on human resources development
started its work and had only two weeks to rapidly consult a
number of groups and experts. But during that time, the
government, without any consulting, decided to cut
unemployment benefits and to include in the budget cuts
totalling $7.4 billion over three years and affecting social
programs, i.e. unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance
Plan and established programs financing.
But that was not all. Bombarded with questions, Mr. Martin,
the minister, said that he expected additional cuts in the reform
undertaken by his colleague. The cat got out of the bag yesterday
morning, just in time to colour what is not an action plan any
more, but rather a pale green discussion paper, as some reporters
have said.
So, the cat that got out of the bag is that over and above the
$7.4 billion cuts already voted and included in the budget, the
government would cut at least another $7 billion by the year
1999. And yet, there is no rush now. We now have plenty of time
to consult the public. There is no action plan any more, only a
discussion paper. Why? Because what was urgent was cutting
without consulting, without caring about who would be brutally
affected, including those children who are said today to be the
biggest concern of the government. What a shame! I have to use
parliamentary language.
The point I want to make this morning is that this discussion
paper, which is supposed to launch a sweeping reform, this
discussion paper called Improving Social Security in Canada,
does not augur well, either for the people who need it or for the
provinces, which are now responsible for all of these areas
except unemployment insurance.
(1255)
It should be said loud and clear, and we will say it again, that
this is not a program for people, whether they are unemployed,
about to lose their jobs, need an income, are on welfare, or are
first-time job seekers. It is not a program for people in need, for
6623
the poor and destitute. It is a program for a government that
wants to cut spending, a government that does not have the guts
to introduce tax reforms-my colleagues will elaborate-a
government that is afraid to tell Employment and Immigration
Canada that it cannot ride roughshod over Canadians. The
program aims to centralize, and generous though the minister
may seem, his idea of decentralizing is travelling around the
country and signing programs himself.
This reform is definitely not for people. Let us consider very
briefly some of the most frequently quoted reasons for
proceeding with this so-called urgent reform. One word we hear
constantly is backlog. Programs have a tremendous backlog.
Backlog of what? They do not really say, but the impression is
that there are too many unemployed for UI to handle. The
government calls this a social security program, but everyone
will agree that the best social security for people who are able to
work is a job. This program has no employment plan, and
whenever it refers to what it will do for people who need jobs, it
says it will give them the means to look for one.
We are going to turn the unemployed into job seekers. This is
not job creation but job search. They say there is a backlog
because the economy is changing. Yes, it is changing, and it is
changing very quickly. What kind of work does this new
economy produce? It produces work that is less permanent. All
industrialized countries agree that market globalization,
technological change, and changes in family patterns are
phenomena that have a major impact on society and
employment.
Are these dynamics understood? Hardly. Does the
government realize that the main problem-and we do not know
how long this will last-is that except for the lucky ones with
steady jobs whose numbers are decreasing, jobs are becoming
less and less permanent and are held for increasingly shorter
periods? Does it realize that there is pressure to reduce the
number of unions and thus lessen pressures on the labour
market?
The fact facing most people who are employed and all those
people who are looking for work is that, in most cases, the jobs
available are short-term jobs, either by their nature or because it
may be difficult to stay in a particular job. When people say the
problem is the backlog, it seems to me there is a backlog in the
thinking of those who produced this document, a failure to
realize that spending cuts and the old programs the Liberals
were never able to implement after trying to do so on so many
previous occasions are not the answer. A new approach is
needed to deal with these problems.
(1300)
They were not able to negotiate or legislate any solution, and I
will give one example. Parliamentarians who-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. In this House,
members may not use exhibits to prove their point. I realize that
today we have a working paper which members on both sides of
the House will want to use to read a few quotes. However, the
Chair cannot allow the use of other exhibits or, taking the
extreme case if a member were to use the document we are
discussing today, as an exhibit, I think the Chair would have to
intervene. That is not the case right now, and I hope it will stay
that way. This is a very important subject for the country, and I
hope we can have a debate that is both vigorous and respectful of
our Standing Orders.
I would not have interrupted the hon. member otherwise, but I
wanted to make this point. The hon. member may proceed.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may name the document,
a working paper that never had the privilege of being tabled not
in this Parliament but in 1973, and was never to progress beyond
the colour orange. In fact it was known as the orange paper.
Released in 1973 and prepared at the behest of Minister Marc
Lalonde, it contained some very interesting items.
Hon. members opposite may wish to read them. I do not agree
with everything the paper says, but it is interesting reading. The
document attempted to formulate proposals for a social security
policy for Canada. In addition to employment, and the paper
discusses opportunities for employment, it examined ways of
providing Canadians and their families with a consistent income
security system. The objective was to define a social policy for
Canada.
That perspective is sadly lacking in the green, I would say
frosty green, paper. It does not even exist. There is no concern
for what happens to people. Their only concern is what happens
to the budget, this after refusing to review the tax system and
increase revenues, instead of shamelessly cutting social
spending.
They have another excuse for introducing reforms. Or, should
I say, conducting consultations on reforms, because they are not
in such a hurry, they have legislated cuts and, of course, there
will be more. In any case, they said the cuts would be announced
in the Finance minister's budget. So we are going to have
consultations without knowing the extent of these cuts. In other
words, Canadians know we are going to have consultations, but
on what? The government says it will be about change, and
Quebecers are starting to realize what has to be changed.
The other excuse is the lack of flexibility. That is a good one! I
know the situation in Quebec, where I worked for awhile. In
Quebec, people who have been involved in the fight against
poverty and unemployment know how difficult it is because of a
lack of flexibility in federal programs and the Canada
Assistance Plan.
(1305)
Allow me to give an extremely significant example: during its
first term, the Parti Quebecois decided to help low-income
families and individuals stay in the workplace and avoid
yielding to the very comprehensible temptation, considering
their income, to rely on social assistance. Therefore, the Parti
Quebecois decided to raise their income by giving them a
supplement
6624
according to their individual and family needs among other
things. That program was called SUPRET at the time.
When they came to office the Liberals modified that program
because of practical difficulties that had nothing to do with its
content. That program later became the APPORT.
What is most inadmissible is that the program did not qualify
for a 50 per cent reimbursement under the Canada Assistance
Plan because the beneficiaries did not, of course, pass the
revenue test since they earned more than the authorized
minimum.
That situation went on for years while the province of
Quebec-at that time it was still called the province though it is
less and less called that way now-tried, to fight against poverty
within the system. But we would always come up against the
rigidity of the system. Yes, the CAP supported 50 per cent of the
costs, but only if the government encouraged these people to
stay on social assistance. This is one example of the system's
rigidity, but there are many others.
So when we are told that the situation is urgent and that we
need a reform because of the rigidity of the system, I fully agree
and we should proceed immediately. Except that the government
does not have to make a consultation that will last two years
before addressing the problems for which he is responsible.
Other reasons have been given, but since time does not stand
still, I will leave it up to my colleagues to speak to
improvements in education. This is clearly within the
jurisdiction of Quebec, or within provincial jurisdiction, in the
case of other provinces.
I will conclude by speaking about childhood poverty but first I
would like to come back to the proposed options.
In order to convince Canadians that they should accept the
cuts it preferred, the government explains that from now on
there should be two categories of UI beneficiaries. Obviously
the goal is to save money. There would be two categories: the
occasional unemployed and those who are frequently
unemployed.
The goal is to reduce costs while providing some assistance.
We will listen to the consultation but I can tell you that my mind
is made up about the system proposed. I believe it will be
unacceptable for the following reason: people who hold a job for
a long time in a company and lose it when the company closes its
doors or because of a recession like the last one in 1981-82, are
precisely those who join the ranks of the unemployed. In many
cases the unemployed in 1981-82 have been unable to find
another job. Since then, many of them have had only odd jobs
and the others are on social assistance. Those of 1989-90 who
had been spared by the first recession have now joined their
ranks.
(1310)
These people had not turned to unemployment insurance in
the past but they are now trapped in the unemployment-odd
jobs-social assistance cycle. Why? Because the major problem,
the main problem is employment. I will conclude by talking
about employment. In order to help those people-because they
need help, and the Liberal document of Mr. Lalonde came to the
same conclusion in 1973-what must we do? We must provide
good career counselling services for all people who turn to
unemployment insurance.
Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, I was completely
astonished because in his document the minister said: Yes, we
should have good counselling services. Is that not infuriating?
He is the minister in charge! What is stopping him,
administratively speaking, from taking the necessary steps and
creating a good counselling service? There is no need for a
two-year consultation process or for an act of Parliament to
create good counselling services. The idea was already in the air
in 1973. Anyone moderately intelligent knows that when
someone is down on his luck, you give him a few months to get
back on his feet but first of all, you must help him. What is
waiting for him or her? Retraining or job creation support or,
rather do we think that the market is sufficient? Beyond that
what is there?
There is nothing else, those are the hard facts of life. So how
come they suddenly realize that their unemployment period
should be used for retraining? We have been saying the same
thing for decades. All of a sudden, in a document of some
urgency, which says softly that this is urgent, we are
rediscovering the need for retraining, yet Quebec has been
asking for years to be given full control over job training.
I am running out of time. I have only two minutes left, so I
will say: we will come back to that. The proposed reform is not a
reform, and neither will it end childhood poverty. Quebec has
been through a totally unacceptable situation. In 1965, René
Lévesque, then minister of Family and Social Welfare, said
during a federal-provincial conference that Quebec wanted to
take charge of family allowances in order to use them in a
poverty prevention policy.
He said: ``The Quebec government is setting up a new social
security policy which will involve not only a reorganization of
the programs it presently manages, but also the inclusion of
reappropriated federal programs which will achieve their full
effectiveness only once they are integrated and, if necessary,
reviewed in order to be fully coordinated and tailored to the
needs of the people they are intended for. Such an integration is
necessary because of the obvious necessity to view social
measures as an integral part of our general policy on social and
economic development''.
So spoke René Lévesque, a federalist, in 1965. He argued that
the programs would be fully effective only when integrated.
Quebec had a plan to integrate all the elements. With this
program, this proposed reform, the central government is
proposing a Canada where Ottawa pulls all the strings.
6625
(1315)
It might be the future of Canada, although we are going to
fight to keep the present Constitution which recognizes that
provinces have jurisdiction over everything, except
unemployment insurance. In Quebec, the project requires the
approval of the people who want control over their future.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the
hon. member as well as the one from her leader, the Leader of the
Opposition. I find it strange that they should talk about real life,
a life rather difficult for many Canadians, without ever
mentioning the fact that, today, 25 per cent of children are born
to families living below the poverty line. The Leader of the
Opposition did not say a word about that. I think it is a national
disgrace and, like a majority of the population, I am dismayed
by it.
They also talked about students. They said that education was
a provincial matter, but the Leader of the Opposition never
acknowledged the fact that 40 per cent of young Quebecers
never finish their secondary education. This is a tragedy. We
know that in industrialized nations like Japan, 95 per cent of
their young people graduate from high school. We know that
South Korea has the highest per capita number of PhDs.
The Leader of the Opposition did not talk of the high rate of
suicide among the young people of Quebec. In this in-depth
debate we want to undertake with the people of Canada, the only
concern of the opposition, and I found that regrettable, is that we
do not mention the reality of life for young Quebecers or
Canadians.
I also want to talk about job training. There are 25,000 jobs,
80,000 jobs that remain unfilled in Quebec and Canada through
lack of job training. They only talked about university graduates
who are a mere 12 per cent of young people. Nothing is said
about job training. I am under the impression that the Bloc
Quebecois is forgetting the large majority of Quebecers who
want real jobs and long term positions.
What we want is to develop specifically designed programs
for each region, that is what we heard constituents ask for during
both the federal and provincial campaigns. When the federal
government gets involved and offers various programs in order
to interest young people in training, it wants these young people
to take these courses locally. We are prepared to co-operate with
local schools or CEGEPs, but not necessarily in large centres
like Quebec City and Montreal, where most of the Bloc
members come from.
I think we must insist on the fact that, if it is true that reality
must be taken into account, we must also acknowledge the
failure of the programs and services intended for those who are
really in need. As I said before, we must consider the condition
of young people, students and single parent families. Those
people are not forgotten in our society. Unfortunately, the Bloc
quebecois did not say a word yet about them.
In conclusion, I would like to hear the comments of a former
minister from the Parti Quebecois. She had the chance to rectify
the situation in Quebec and to ensure that young people had
better occupational training or better chances to complete their
high school. To think that today close to 40 per cent of young
Quebecers drop out of high school. What a failure compared to
the situation in the rest of the world.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
allowing me to go on with my speech. I would like to add that
members opposite are all from the West Island but you. We are
glad to have you here.
(1320)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I am sure you will
still want to address your comments to the Chair. The member
for Mercier has the floor.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will not do it again.
I must say that Quebec wanted for quite a while to get control
of family allowances-first with René Lévesque in 1965 and
then with Castonguay in 1971-because big families were
creating a specific problem at the time, and also because the
Quebec government was not comfortable with the federal
policy. These ministers, federalists and Liberals, wanted to
apply a policy aimed at preventing childhood poverty, but were
not allowed to do it.
I must add something. The minister's task force was
especially interested in preventing poverty among children. It
found that the countries which succeeded in preventing
childhood poverty were those that applied the policy favoured
by René Lévesque and Castonguay, that is to give family
allowances to all families instead of waiting for them to be on
welfare before helping their children. It is a system which has
kept children and family prisoners of poverty; we have been
wanting to change it for a long time. The first thing to do to
change the system would have been to get control over family
allowances, which we were unable to obtain.
When it comes to rigidity and child poverty in Quebec, we can
tell you all about it. You caused it with your system. Compare-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. We must
have a vigourous debate, but we must avoid constantly engaging
in personal attacks, which lowers the debate below the level we
are accustomed to in the House of Commons. The member for
Mercier.
6626
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will watch my language.
I was saying that Canada was reprimanded for not doing
enough for children and its policy is clearly to be blamed for it.
It is against this very policy that Quebec ministers fought, trying
to give families universal allowances in order to prevent child
poverty.
An hon. member: You were a minister in the Parti Quebecois
government.
Mrs. Lalonde: That is right, and I am proud of it. I was the
minister responsible for the status of women. I too was able to
see how rigid the Canada Assistance Plan is; we had to scrape
around to find enough money to create day care centres. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, daycare is for children under five and child
care for children over five.
The Canada Assistance Plan paid 50 per cent of day care
expenses, but not private day care expenses-we had plenty of
these establishments in Quebec-or child care services
provided by schools to prevent children from dropping out.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, I must say
that it is a great honour, as the member for the Quebec riding of
Outremont, to speak in favour of the reform unveiled today by
the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is a major
step, an essential one, one we cannot avoid.
It is with pleasure that I stand today in this House since, as I
have mentioned previously, the Official Opposition acts
according to a self-serving policy and not a policy aimed at
helping Canadians in general and even less Quebecers.
On this side of the House, we take the interests of all
Canadians to heart and, as far as we, Liberals members from
Quebec, are concerned, I must say that we are working
relentlessly to ensure Quebec has a voice in this forum, a
highly-democratic one at that, where I am particularly proud to
rise in support of this fundamental reform, as I said earlier.
(1325)
Our society has changed considerably over the past five
decades. Following the Second World War, the very nature of the
work on the job market is constantly changing. Technological
changes, globalization of international markets and the need for
environmental protection have shaken the job market,
especially in the industrialized world.
A great many industries have undergone substantial
restructuring, while others completely disappeared. As a result,
several traditional job types were eliminated and replaced by
news ones that often require higher education levels and, of
course, much more specialized skills. On the whole, workers are
unemployed more often, as you may have noticed.
Unfortunately, they are also out of work for longer periods.
It should be pointed out that the way things work in the family
unit has also changed considerably these past few years.
Nowadays, in most families, both parents work outside of home.
Nowadays, women have entered massively into the labour
market and make a major contribution to our gross national
product. There is also a larger number of single-parent families
and, more often than not, the head of these families are women.
For one reason or another, these women all too often end up in
a situation of vulnerability, if not plain poverty. Like my hon.
colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said, the
sad reality is that, as a direct result of lone parenthood, the
category of people hardest hit by poverty is that of children. In
Canada today -this is important to note-one child out of five
is living in poverty, which I must say is totally unacceptable in a
society such as ours, a so-called free and democratic society.
We absolutely must find answers to these problems. And let
me tell you that, with our approach as government, we will find
solutions and we will find them not in isolation, but all together
as a society, the Canadian society. Over the years, successive
Liberal governments have put in place, and I am very proud of
this achievement, a social security system that reflected our
values as Canadians. I can quote a number of examples. Take for
instance values such as compassion, equal opportunity and
protection for persons in need.
Such values are basic principles that my party, the Liberal
Party, has always promoted, and I am quite proud of that.
However, social programs did not keep up with the fundamental
changes that have occurred in the Canadian economy,
technology, family, global competition and our financial
situation. It is also obvious that the public authorities have spent
beyond their means these past decades. There has been some
kind of international surge of government interference.
Unfortunately, we must face the tough reality that today's
governments cannot longer afford the luxury of spending. This
is a reality we must work with. At the present time, the size of
our national debt seriously undermines our ability to pay for
services and-it must be recognized-ultimately slows down
the Canadian economy as a whole.
(1330)
It must be pointed out that the federal government spends
$38.7 billion a year on unemployment insurance, employment
programs, social assistance, post-secondary education, child
tax benefits, and on programs for the handicapped.
Despite all this money, we must come to the harsh conclusion
that our system does not serve the Canadian people adequately.
We must find ways to spend our money-taxpayers' money in
fact-in a wiser, more cost-effective way.
6627
The provincial governments also recognize the need for
reform. Several of them have already started improving their
own social programs. Recently, in a speech he gave in Quebec
City on September 18, the Prime Minister perfectly summed
up this government's approach when he said this: ``Our
objective is to put in place a social security system that will
protect the most vulnerable and give all Canadians equal
chances of developing their potential, living fully and
experiencing the dignity of work''.
I fully support these principles underlying the reform
undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources Development,
and I am confident that the Canadian people will also fully
support these principles.
In fact, the mandate we, as parliamentarians, received from
the Canadian population as a whole is fairly simple: we must
help people to become more independent and-I know that we
often go back to this-to live in dignity.
That is exactly what is proposed in the discussion paper, the
so-called green book before us today. This green book, which is
submitted to all Canadians, outlines problems as well as
solutions, essentially in three major areas of social security:
employment, learning and security itself.
We all know that, for most families, and I think that this
should be stressed, a good job is the best form of social security
and a guarantee of dignity-a fundamental human value-for
those who have jobs, who earn a living.
That is why the federal government will spend $3.3 billion
this year on various job training and development programs.
Provided they reduce people's dependency on unemployment
insurance and social assistance, these programs are-it goes
without saying-a good investment for this government.
However, current programs and services as we know them no
longer fulfil their mandates.
We will probably get better results by offering new
employment development services at the local level. The
objective is simple: provide new opportunities, help Canadians
find jobs and especially-this should be the ultimate goal-help
people keep the jobs they found.
Governments could manage these programs more efficiently
by focusing more on local needs.
(1335)
We must create closer partnerships with the provinces. I stress
the word ``partnership'' because the green book as a whole
essentially reflects-I will come back to that a little later-a
renewed, modern federalism adapted to today's needs, that is,
based on partnership. We need partnerships with the provinces,
with the private sector, with volunteer organizations, to better
serve the population and especially to eliminate waste and
duplication. You are now in a position to understand that-to use
a common expression-the cat is out of the bag.
We have before us a paper reflecting an open, flexible
federalism aimed at making the most of this system of
government in the interest of all Canadians. So you can see why
the members of the Official Opposition are-as we often
say-lashing out. Since they desperately want Quebec to
separate, it goes without saying that enhanced federalism
undermines their plans, which is why they lack objectivity.
To go back to unemployment insurance, it must be pointed out
that, in the beginning, this program was supposed to help people
who had lost their jobs by providing temporary income support.
In fact, unemployment insurance was simply, as the term
implies, a form of insurance. However, in the new economic
environment, our social programs must do more than just issue a
benefit cheque. They must also give the unemployed a chance to
get and keep a job, as I said.
Let us look at some statistics. Last year, 13 per cent of the
unemployed had been without work for a year or more. This is
three times what the long-term unemployment rate was in 1976.
Furthermore, and this is even more disturbing and difficult to
accept, nearly 40 per cent of recipients had made at least three
applications for unemployment insurance in the previous five
years.
In fact, for too many of them, unemployment insurance has
become a treadmill that they cannot escape, which I find most
unfortunate. People who are frequently unemployed need
practical help which, too often, they cannot obtain.
Furthermore, many people, especially women and the young,
who hold unconventional jobs do not even qualify for
unemployment insurance. This is a very serious shortcoming.
We can no longer afford a system that lets people work 12
weeks and collect UI for the rest of the year. This is a hard fact
but it is reality. People who are frequently unemployed must be
offered practical help and strong measures to enable them to
find a job and, as I said before and keep repeating, to hold it.
With a trained labour force, our cities will no doubt attract
investments and new jobs much more easily. The government
can provide the necessary tools, but we must seek appropriate
solutions together, and this question of working together and
partnership keeps coming up.
I emphasize that social program reform is a mutual
responsibility. We must pay special attention to how we spend
and not just how much. The discussion paper, which I call the
green paper, of course, proposes two approaches for reforming
unemployment insurance.
6628
The first approach is a new two-tier unemployment insurance
plan. For occasional claimants who use the system less, the plan
would continue to operate as before and provide the same
parental, sickness, maternity and adoption benefits.
(1340)
Frequent claimants who face what I would call a chronic
unemployment problem would be entitled to what can be called
adjustment insurance. These benefits could be lower, but
beneficiaries would have access to more active measures to find
work or to acquire training that will eventually lead to a steady
job.
The second approach to UI reform involves adapting the
present UI system that we know. This approach would treat
occasional and frequent claimants the same way. The period of
employment required to be eligible for benefits could be longer
or the benefit period could be shorter.
Also, the amount of benefits paid could be reduced. I
emphasize that when I talk about unemployment insurance
reform, it must be said that these are proposals we are making in
the green paper and of course we are counting on the public
consultation to follow, beginning in November, if my memory
serves me, to find out what all Canadians think about the options
we are proposing. This is not a policy that will be followed with
legislation; it is a discussion paper.
The second point in the green paper of course concerns
post-secondary education. As we well know, education in
Canada is exclusively in provincial or territorial jurisdiction;
however, we must be reasonable and realistic. We must
recognize that since Confederation, the federal government has
supported post-secondary education because of the basic
connection between education and employment.
This support has helped build the system of universities and
colleges that we know today in Canada and of which we are so
proud. Now, the big new challenge facing higher education,
basically, is access. Our system must educate and train many
more people than in the past. Training must also be better suited
to the new jobs. I think it is important to point out that in the past
three years, the number of jobs offered to university graduates
increased by 17 per cent, while the number of jobs offered to
people who had not graduated fell by 19 per cent.
The idea that only children and young adults have to learn is
outdated, since each and every one of us now has to accept the
idea of learning as part of life. With continuing education, we
can keep a state-of-the-art labour force and a dynamic
economy. Canadians must be able to benefit from better
opportunities for education and training throughout their
working life.
The system must also be modernized so as not to restrict
access to education and training, both for young people who are
beginning their career and for workers who want to follow
developments in the new economy. As you know, the federal
government provides over $8 billion a year for post-secondary
education, through student loans or transfers to the provinces.
The value of the federal contribution is rising every year at the
same rate as economic growth.
(1345)
We must, however, face the hard facts of what I would call our
budgetary constraints. The cash portion of the federal transfers
will decrease proportionally, and will unfortunately come to an
end within ten years.
Instead of letting these cash transfers run out, we must think
of better ways to use this money in order to help more people pay
for their studies, thus providing better access to education.
In a competitive global economy, the decision to invest in
learning, and no one can blame us for showing goodwill, is
economically sound, but the investment must be a shared
responsibility.
Thus, two main options are introduced in the discussion
paper. The first is to stop the cash transfers to the provinces and
territories, and use the money instead to make more loans and
grants available to individuals. The second would allow more
flexibility in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, so that
people could use their savings for lifelong learning. In fact, the
commendable goal of the government is to maintain and to
broaden access to post-secondary education and learning.
In the interest of greater fairness, the government is
proposing a system where loans would be repaid according to
the student's future income. Here again, I think no one could
blame us for trying to create a much fairer system.
Unfortunately, too many people depend on welfare, whereas,
if they had effective employment and training support, they
could find a job.
Since 1981, the number of welfare recipients has doubled,
reaching just over three million. Our social security system
must protect the neediest. It is clear from the options proposed
in the green paper that that is precisely our goal.
Finally, members opposite are attacking the reform that we
are tabling as if it were essentially an undebatable policy. Let it
be clearly understood that the government is working for all
Canadians.
Some hon. members opposite have said that they have on their
drawing boards an idea for an open, cost-effective and modern
federalism. I tell them that on our side, the government side, we
think their ideas are already outdated, because the paper just
tabled by the hon. minister Axworthy is a perfect example of this
new federalism.
6629
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, when I was first
elected in 1984, our debt totalled some $175 billion. Since then,
it has continued to grow and we are living on credit; each year,
we borrow money to maintain our standard of living. The paper
tabled yesterday confirms that federalism can no longer afford
to provide the social services needed by Canadians.
We now have the proof of that, and it has been given to us by
the present Liberal government. It is very simple. When a
government cannot fulfil its main mandate, which is to ensure
that everyone's health and education needs are satisfied, that
they have the basics to survive, and when it officially declares
that it can no longer afford to carry out its social mandate, this is
proof that that government and that federalism cannot work any
more. Like we said 30 years ago in Quebec, the federal
government should have decentralized its responsibilities and
put social affairs under provincial jurisdiction.
This would have been a very logical process, as we can see
today.
(1350)
Quebecers will understand clearly well that the federal
government is going bankrupt. In fact, that was officially
announced last evening: the federal government is literally
bankrupt. The evidence is there. Let us take a look at the
document.
The hon. member for Verdun should say if he agrees with me
on that. After all he is from Quebec. He has followed politics-
Mr. Cauchon: Outremont.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Outremont, I am sorry. People
from Montreal do not like it when you say Verdun. Outremont is
posh, so we have to be very careful. Again, Mr. Speaker, I
apologize to the hon. member for referring to the wrong riding.
In any case, the evidence is there regarding this very costly
overlapping, whether in the education or health sector, and, as I
said, this document confirms that this overlapping has cost so
much that the federal government is bankrupt. It is as simple as
that.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, first I resent such comments on
my riding. Outremont is a great constituency and I am very
proud of it. I am also very proud of the fact that, last October 25,
Outremont voters asked me to represent them here. I have every
intention of continuing to do so properly and to also represent all
Quebecers.
It is rather amusing to see how irresponsible the Official
Opposition can be in its approach. The members opposite are
irresponsible because they are saying that Mr. Axworthy's
Green Paper is an admission that we no longer have-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to remind hon.
members that they should not mention names but only refer to
titles or constituencies. You can say ``the Minister of Human
Resources Development''.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, they are irresponsible because
they claim that the Green Paper is an admission that the federal
government no longer has the means to meet its financial
obligations regarding social programs.
Again, this demonstrates the extent to which the Official
Opposition is trying to deceive Quebecers. We have the duty, in
the context of the Canadian federation, to restructure social
programs, first because they are no longer working and second
because of budget constraints. Can you imagine where you
would find the money to do that, once Quebec has separated.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. The debate
continues to be heated. The Chair reminds hon. members to
make sure they always address it.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I was looking at
you. My finger was pointing in another direction, but I was
looking at you.
I wonder to what extent the people who promote separation
are creating smoke and mirrors for the benefit of Quebecers. I
say so, because I respect the notion of separation being
conveyed in Quebec. I respect it, but I think that this
government-and this is really hurting the opposition
parties-is a responsible government which takes the mandate it
has received from Canadians very seriously. What we are trying
to do is first to ensure that our social programs are working and
that the workers can re-enter the labour force while we remain
able to meet our budget requirements.
I also want to mention that the opposition is trying to focus
only on the reform proposals found in the green book, the reform
suggested by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I
also think that the opposition is trying to deceive people,
because this reform is in line with a more general strategy. As
the Prime Minister recently explained, the government strategy
is based on four pillars. First, there is the intergovernmental
relations reform, which the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs must implement. Then, there is the financial situation
and the job creation policy.
But here is where the shoe pinches for the opposition.
Although I would not call the green book a masterpiece of
contemporary literature, it is surely a chef-d'oeuvre as far as a
more open, cooperative, flexible and profitable type of
federalism is concerned.
(1355)
If our reform is successful, it will prove that federalism
works. Members across the aisle find it to their own advantage
to set out stumbling blocks. Today I advise Canadians and
especially Quebecers to beware lest they be deceived by these
people who only have their own interests at heart while we, on
this side, want to protect Canadians' and Quebecers' interests.
6630
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the comments and the answers to the
questions the hon. member gave.
He made the valid comment that people are being misled. I
look through the document and people think there really is
something in there that is going to solve the problems of this
country. I really think they are being misled.
I would like to comment on some of the statements made with
regard to training programs. First of all, who pays for these
training programs? The hon. member knows the people who pay
for the training programs this government wants to implement
are the employers and employees. They are the ones who pay for
them. In other words these training programs are a tax on those
who create jobs and those who work.
The finance minister has acknowledged that if you were to
reduce unemployment premiums you would create many jobs.
Yet there is not a clear plan in any of this that that will happen. In
fact it is going to be a job destroyer if we continue to have the
public pay these high premiums.
If you pay people not to work they will not work.
The Speaker: Order. I thought I heard the word ``you'' in
there and I know you are addressing the Chair. Perhaps you
would pose the question.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry. I meant it in the generic sense.
How does the plan in this booklet create jobs? Can we have a
clear and reasoned explanation as to what in this whole plan will
create jobs? I would like a clear and reasoned answer to that
because it is not obvious when reading it.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the green
paper. Our platform in it is much more interesting than the
platform we could have with the Reform Party. Reform Party
policy would cut all spending on social programs. That is all
Reformers want. All they want is an irresponsible government.
They should not tell people that this is a policy. It is a discussion
paper.
If you have something to say in the best interests of-
The Speaker: I would simply remind you, my colleagues,
that you must speak through the Chair. It takes the sting out of
everything. However, it being 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
6630
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I quote:
The Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program has been an overwhelming
success both locally in Wilmot as well as in the region of Waterloo. It has created
numerous jobs and made a significant contribution to the local economy.
I strongly urge you to consider extending this very valuable program. There
are still a number of projects which need to be completed. The Canada-Ontario
infrastructure works program extended would provide the vehicle to complete
these projects and provide much needed additional jobs.
These are the words of the mayor of Wilmot township, his
worship Lynn Myers. His sentiments are shared by all the
municipal leaders in my community and is indicative of the
success of the infrastructure program.
The Canadian infrastructure program is an investment in the
future of Canada. I urge the government to consider the
extension of this program.
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario
premier joined his Quebec and Saskatchewan counterparts in
rejecting the social program reform as proposed by the Minister
of Human Resources Development.
The Ontario premier went as far as describing the document
tabled yesterday as an insult to all provinces and all Canadians,
nothing less. Clearly, this government's obsession with making
the most destitute pay is contrary to the people's wishes.
Within 24 hours, three provinces representing two thirds of
the Canadian population have already opposed this reform. It is
about time this government listened to Canadians and proposed
solutions which answer their needs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal's discussion paper on social reform policy
has no meat. The Liberals had months to develop these
proposals and yet there is absolutely nothing we can sink our
teeth into.
The Liberals accused reformers during the campaign of
wanting to destroy social programs because we wanted to target
spending to people in need. This is what social programs are for.
By contrast, the Liberals and Tories have traditionally used
social programs simply to buy votes.
6631
Canadians are fed up with this. We cannot even begin to make
significant cuts in our budget unless the government has the
guts to wade into the waters that it and the Tories muddied. We
need an action plan directed at those most in need. We need
an action plan that targets those who cannot work, not those
who will not work.
Canadians want action. What they get are more and more
delays, more and more wasted time while the Liberals consider
only their political future.
Let us take politics out of this and put Canadians first.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, National AIDS Awareness Week draws our attention to
the most threatening epidemic in the history of mankind.
During this week we must remember the victims of AIDS.
Those infected by HIV are victims. Those who have lost loved
ones are victims. Those who support the health care system with
our taxes are victims. We are all victims of this terrible human
scourge.
We must also turn our thoughts to the dedicated work of the
health care professionals, hospital workers, care givers and
volunteers who seek to slow the onslaught of the damage caused
by AIDS.
I call on my fellow MPs to support all efforts to find a solution
to this most important human concern.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
stand to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the
government for doing in less than a year what the previous
government could not do in seven.
The announcement of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act signals this government's commitment to its
red book promises and its commitment to the health of our
environment and economy.
The act will remove uncertainty and get environmental
assessment out of the courts and back into the hands of the
people where it belongs.
The minister in her statement clearly pointed out that the
government wants to work with all jurisdictions that care about
their environmental future and is willing to discuss
harmonization with every province and aboriginal group.
Five ministers of the previous government tried to do this and
failed and it only took one Liberal minister, one Liberal
government to succeed. One Liberal to five others, sounds like
fair odds to me.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today at the request of Barbara McGinnis who
has asked me to join with the Brain Tumour Foundation of
Canada in declaring October Brain Tumour Awareness Month.
Every year over 10,000 brain tumours are diagnosed in
Canada. By educating the public to the symptoms of brain
tumours, detecting tumours at an early stage and continuing
with research into the cause and treatment of these tumours,
lives can be saved.
(1405 )
It is only through increased public awareness and the
participation of responsible community minded citizens that the
foundation can continue to achieve success. The foundation's
goals are to be found in brain tumour research, providing patient
and family support services and educating the public.
I encourage my colleagues in the House as well as all
Canadians to support the brain tumour foundation in its efforts
to raise public awareness of this serious life threatening disease.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Quebec government indicated that the social program reform is
totally unacceptable. Quebec's position is clear: Ottawa still
insists on controlling the economic, social and cultural
development of the provinces.
This reform is a centralizing effort irreconcilable with the
prevailing consensus in Quebec for taking the authority over
manpower training. What is even worse is that Ottawa is ten
years behind the existing programs in Quebec. The terrible cuts
proposed in this reform only reflect the federal government's
inability to balance its own budget. As was noted by the Quebec
Minister of Employment, Ottawa used the public finance crisis
as an excuse for getting involved in every aspect of social
security.
The Bloc Quebecois joins with the Quebec government to
oppose this reform which affects the most destitute in our
society.
6632
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the tenth anniversary of Marc Garneau's voyage in space.
I am sure all parliamentarians join me saluting this Canadian
hero and this milestone for the Canadian space program.
I would also like to draw the House's attention to some other
Canadian space travellers who will be celebrating an
anniversary later this month. The Liberal government has been
on another planet for almost a year now. The human resources
minister says he wants us to reach for the moon. That is easy for
him to say, he is lost in space.
The Canadian public wants to know when this government is
going to come down to earth and actually deal with some of this
country's social and fiscal problems. How long before the IMF
says beam them up?
While I am on this celestial topic I would like to point out that
Canada's debt is reaching astronomical levels. This morning at
0800 hours the national debt was $533,210,978,829. 19. That is
a disgrace.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
this week is the third annual Mental Illness Awareness Week.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association and other organizations
are focusing on mental illness in the family this week.
Mental illness can affect anyone at any time. One in every five
Canadians will suffer from a mental illness at some point in their
lives. Canadian hospital costs for people being treated for
mental illnesses exceed $1 billion a year. We as Canadians have
a responsibility to do our part, especially in these times of fiscal
restraint.
Governments, organizations, communities, families and the
individuals diagnosed with mental illnesses have to work
together to create a more cost effective, more humane approach
to the treatment of mental illness.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I am
astonished to hear that the Quebec premier refused to join the
Canadian economic mission to Asia, which is composed of
business leaders and premiers.
Mr. Parizeau claims that he is needed in Quebec. Come on.
Has he already forgotten that he pledged to represent all
Quebecers whatever their option?
As a team player, we have seen better. Quebec ranked 32nd
among exporters, supplying only 18 per cent of all Canadian
exports, and Mr. Parizeau would rather be alone on the ice.
Rather than joining Team Canada and trying harder not to throw
away Quebec's chances, he insists on passing the puck to others.
Is this the new government? Mr. Parizeau should know that, to
succeed, it is better to rely on top players than on substitutes.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the House to celebrate the impressive
accomplishments of Mr. Herman vanDuyn, the owner of Hill's
Greenhouse Nurseries in Murillo, Ontario.
This hard working and civic minded entrepreneur has
produced over 100 million tree seedlings, a truly remarkable
milestone. Mr. vanDuyn is the first Canadian to grow seedlings
for the Minnesota state government.
His contribution to his community has been significant,
providing employment for 8 full time and up to 50 part time
positions. Moreover, he typically donates 10,000 to 20,000 tree
seedlings every year to a variety of individuals and
organizations in his community and across the country.
This fiercely proud Canadian, born in Holland, chose to
emigrate to Canada because of the great respect Dutch people
have for Canada. This is one of so many reasons Canada has
been and continues to be an excellent destination for business
investment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, we waited for the
discussion paper on the reform of social programs for a very
long time, and we are all deeply disappointed with it.
In fact, all Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about the
impact of these reforms on their quality of life and particularly
on the poorest members of society. Even some Liberal members
dissociate themselves from the discussion paper presented by
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Indeed, last night, the member for York South-Weston said:
«For the ten years we were the Official Opposition, we accused
the Conservatives of lowering the deficit on the backs of the
most needy, and now we are doing exactly the same thing».
6633
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, many Canadians are very concerned about the intent
and misguided direction of the Liberal government's review of
social programs, and rightly so.
The growing federal debt proves existing programs are
financially unsustainable in the long run and the long run is now.
The minister of human resources seems intent on tinkering with
social programs rather than making real changes to put them on
a sound financial footing.
For the government to simply rejig programs that are
financially unsustainable is dishonest. It is immoral to force on
to Canadians a package of retreaded programs held together
with bubble gum and binder twine. Programs that collapse under
a mountain of debt will crush the very people the programs are
intended to help.
I challenge the minister to prove to this House and to all
Canadians that his social programs can survive the ravages of a
government that cannot balance its books.
The first social aid program that should be cut is an unelected
Senate.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker the
Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has brought to
my attention that this is Autism Awareness Month.
Autism is a developmental disorder which occurs in
approximately 15 out of every 10,000 births. It is estimated that
there are over 500 people affected with this disorder in
Newfoundland alone. It is four times more common in boys than
it is in girls, with symptoms appearing during the first three
years of life. Autism causes severe communication difficulties.
Social interaction and behavioural problems are also evident.
It was first diagnosed in 1943 and is one of the most complex
disabilities to understand. In fact, 50 years of research has failed
to find an exact cause or cure.
I commend the Autism Society for its work on raising public
awareness of this disorder and I am pleased to bring this to the
attention of the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
the interim leader of the Conservative Party recently found a
new political orientation for himself.
He said to the Laval Chamber of Commerce that his new
constitutional position is now called «shared sovereignty».
This statement contrasts sharply with the philosophy and the
action taken by the previous government, of which he was a
member. We ask ourselves several questions today: Are there
now two sovereignist parties in this House?
Is that new constitutional position supported by more than 50
per cent of the Conservative caucus?
(1415)
Is there a connection between his about-face and his recent
discussions with his former boss, Mr. Mulroney?
Canadians no longer trust these politicians who change their
opinions on the basis of opinion polls. If the hon. member really
wants to contribute to the referendum debate that is about to
begin, he should first decide on which side he wants to be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, a recent Supreme Court ruling that extreme
drunkenness can be a defence against rape has shocked all
Canadians, especially women. Where is the rationality in such a
decision?
This ruling is absolutely absurd. Now the voluntary
consumption of alcohol can be used to excuse an individual's
criminal behaviour.
I am sure a great many Canadians are very perplexed by this
decision. What will be the impact of this judgment on impaired
drivers across the country? Can they hide behind the coloured
glass of a bottle because of this judgment?
The Criminal Code has to be amended so that all women and
law-abiding citizens can feel safe again. Drinking must be no
excuse for any criminal behaviour, none whatsoever.
_____________________________________________
6633
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, partially unveiling its plan to reduce its contribution to
the financing of social programs, the government carefully
avoided revealing in its discussion paper the extent of the cuts it
intends to impose on the needy in order to reduce its deficit. But
thanks to yesterday's
Toronto Star, we now know that a
confidential memorandum to Cabinet sets the amount of
additional cuts in social programs at $7.5 billion over the next
five years.
6634
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the people
take seriously the consultation process that is about to begin
when the government did not tell them that its decision had
already been made and that regardless of the consultation, it
will cut social programs by at least another $7.5 billion in the
next five years?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we have said many times in the
House that it would be much more valuable, rather than using
speculative stories and leaked documents to try to scare people,
for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to use the real facts as
presented in the government documents which we have made
public. They are the real ones.
The document we tabled yesterday clearly indicates that
fiscal parameters had been established in the 1994 budget. It
indicated that we would hold transfer payments at the 1993-94
level and that we would have in the 1994 budget savings from
the unemployment insurance fund, which were obtained last
year in Bill C-17.
I have also said publicly that we would like to target another
10 per cent of savings so we could devote that money toward
enhanced employment, job creation and training programs for
unemployed Canadians.
Those fiscal figures are real. They mean something and they
are the ones that apply. Anything beyond that is simply
speculation. The document that the hon. leader refers to has no
relevance or any meaning in terms of real decisions made by this
government.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the document quoted by the Toronto Star is a Cabinet
document saying that not only has the decision to reduce social
spending by $7.5 billion, in addition to the cuts already
announced, been made, but the ministers also decided to hide the
truth from everybody during the consultation process. The
Toronto Star is not a paper suspected of anti-Liberals
sentiments, so I give it some credibility. That gives us an idea of
what it would be like if the Reform Party were in power.
Does the Prime Minister admit that by hiding the extent of the
cuts his government intends to impose on the needy he is asking
people to participate in a phony consultation? How can a
government that will reduce social spending by $15 billion in
five years still speak of compassion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
earlier the minister explained very clearly the government's
position. In the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance,
we indicated, as the minister mentioned a while ago, that we
would not cut transfers to provinces but that we would freeze
them for a year. We passed unemployment legislation that led to
reductions. That is the context in which these discussions with
the public will take place.
(1420)
As for the document to which the hon. member is referring, it
is not a Cabinet document, but rather an internal memo from a
particular department. I receive many documents of this nature
every day; very often, several of them end up in the waste paper
basket.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is that this particular memo did not end up
in the waste paper basket but on the front page of the Toronto
Star.
Now that the government's hidden agenda in terms of real cuts
and bogus consultations has been revealed, will the Prime
Minister be honest and tell us what other unpleasant surprises he
has in store for Canadians in this social reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is a very important document. The minister is addressing a
fundamental problem in our society. We have had social
programs that have served us well until now. However, as the
minister explained in his speech this morning, the context is
completely different today.
The minister was not afraid to tackle the issue and go to the
bottom of things. But we do not want to impose all the solutions.
The minister has offered several alternatives. We will discuss
these alternatives with the provinces and with all those
interested in taking part in these discussions, and we will
introduce legislation next year.
As for the fiscal parameters, everybody knows that we have
made a clear commitment to reduce our country's deficit to 3 per
cent of the GDP by the end of the third year. And as the minister
was saying, all the departments are encouraged to make cuts in
order to help us reach our goal as easily as possible, without
destroying the good things that we have now.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, the
document Agenda: Jobs and Growth goes well beyond that since
it says, and I quote: ``A social security system that is financially
unsustainable is a dead end''. They are talking about financial
sustainability, Mr. Speaker!
As it had already done in last February's budget, instead of
addressing the causes, the government has obviously chosen to
attack the unemployed by proposing measures that restrict
access to unemployment insurance. Yet, in Quebec alone, the
1993 cuts to the unemployment insurance program forced
22,000 unemployed to go on welfare.
6635
In these conditions, how can the minister claim that, by
restricting access to unemployment insurance, he will give to
the unemployed the hope and confidence they so badly need
when he has not proposed any real job creation measures?
The Speaker: I hope that the question will be a little bit
shorter next time.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. deputy looks
carefully at the words she used, rentable means investment. We
are talking about investment in people, investment in their
skills, investment in their talents, investment in their thoughts.
Investment is what it is all about.
I listened this morning to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
In his speech I did not hear one idea about how to get people
back to work, not one idea of how to invest in the country, not
one idea of how we can help the people of Canada. All he wants
to do is tear the country down.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
How can the Minister, in his paper, make the victims of a
situation where jobs are insecure and scarce, particularly those
claimants who regularly rely on UI benefits and make up 40 per
cent of our unemployment insurance rolls, carry the blame for
the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves? Is
that the famous change they so often tell us about?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the paper contains a series of
very important choices for Canadians. The most important is:
are we prepared to invest in helping people get back to work?
Can we help them improve their education, their skills? Can we
give them the incentives to go back to work by offering an
earning supplement to an employer? Can we help them start
their own jobs and start their own businesses?
Those are the key issues. We are not taking away from the
unemployed. We are giving to the unemployed. We are giving
them hope, we are giving them resources, we are re-equipping
them for the new economy so they can get jobs.
We are not standing as an elite, as the members of the
opposition do. They want to see people stay on unemployment
insurance. They want to see people stay unemployed. They have
no interest in getting them back to work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the government's social policy paper is devoid of detailed
information concerning the cost of the proposed reforms or the
projected savings. It is that vacuum that is generating the
speculation about what is meant.
It seems that the government either does not know the cost
and savings figures, or if it does know it is hiding them from
Canadians.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development ignorant of
the detailed cost and savings consequences of his paper or is he
withholding them?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the questions is no
and no.
Mr. Hermanson: That's good. You can tell us then.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, it
is virtually impossible to have the public discussion that the
minister asked for on social reform without Canadians knowing
the detailed cost of the alternatives that are presented. They are
not contained in the paper.
The social net is in a mess because Liberals in the sixties and
seventies would not answer the questions: what does it cost and
where is the money going to come from.
To facilitate the discussion that the minister says he wants,
will he provide in the next week an addendum to the discussion
paper detailing the cost of his social reform proposals and the
expected savings?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Reform Party
had been listening more carefully to what we have been saying, I
indicated that a series of technical papers are being issued that
will give very detailed accounts of all the kinds of programs.
I am going to make an offer to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition. I will table my detailed financial and economic
reports if the hon. leader of the Reform Party will tell us what
programs he intends to cut in the $15 billion of social program
cuts his member announced. Is he cutting seniors' pensions? Is
he cutting aid to children? Is he cutting programs for education?
When is he going to detail what he is going to cut?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
this figure of $15 billion which the minister bandies about is the
government's figure. The government has a $40 billion deficit.
It says it is going to get to $25 billion in three years. We know
that math is not a requirement for being the Minister of Human
Resources Development but that adds up to $15 billion.
6636
Ministers who have grand plans and proposals and no ideas
on how much they cost or how to finance them have been the
curse of finance ministers since the days of Sir John A.
Macdonald. I ask the finance minister, if the Minister of Human
Resources Development cannot or will not provide Canadians
with the cost and projected savings of his paper, will the finance
minister agree to do so?
(1430 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Reform Party does
not like the answers they are getting. They are too truthful for
them to absorb.
I know that it is very difficult for the hon. leader of the Reform
Party to say anything that has not been pre-scripted. We saw last
night how he made comments before he had read the report and
now he is asking questions after I have already given the answer.
I have already said to the hon. leader that we will be tabling
very specific technical papers. In so doing I would like to return
the compliment to the leader and ask if he is going to explain the
comment of his colleague, the member of Parliament for
Calgary North, who said ``we are going to cut in the
neighbourhood of $50 million largely from social programs''.
When is he going to come clean as to what he wants to cut?
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Minister's discussion paper confirms the worst fears
recently reported by the media. Not only is this document going
after the most destitute members of our society, but it is
targeting women specifically. It proposes to make the spouse's
income level a criterion for UI entitlement.
How can the Minister justify his approach that makes
women's right to UI benefits subject to their spouse's income
level?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would recommend strongly
that the hon. member read the green paper. If she reads it she will
recognize that in that proposal we talk about major programs for
child care so that we would have a national strategy for child
care funded to the tune of 700 million new dollars.
We are talking about a major program dealing with child
support as it affects women. We are talking about major
programs to enable women to get back into the workforce. We
are talking about major proposals that would deal with the whole
problem of family work and how we can provide coverage under
unemployment insurance and other income security programs
for part time work occasioned by women.
This is a document to emancipate women into the workforce
and give them full rights for the first time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, since this
proposal is an unacceptable setback for women after decades of
struggle for increased financial independence, will the Minister
immediately undertake to withdraw this proposal which is in
fact discriminatory?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, once again I think it would be
very helpful if in preparing questions the hon. member was
relevant to the kinds of issues that we are dealing with.
I am saying that I would like to see the hon. member, who
expresses a real concern for women, come out and support the
proposals in this green paper to have a national child care
program. Will she support a program for child support
enforcement? Will she support a program that will help women
get back into the workforce? Will she support a program that
will help women go back to school and university? Will she
support those proposals in the green paper, yes or no?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, if this
minister had anything useful to say he probably would not be
attacking other members and inventing things that they never
said.
Is not the reason this minister has only produced a discussion
paper and not an action plan because the minister cannot get
co-operation from the provinces?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the most important part of any
action plan in this day and age is to make sure that all Canadians
have an opportunity to participate in forming it, in shaping it and
in designing it. That is what consultation is about.
(1435 )
I understand the Reform Party has this authoritarian streak. It
does not want to consult with people. It does not want to ask
people. It does not want people to participate.
Why is the Reform Party afraid to go to the public and ask
what they think rather than going ding-a-ling on a telephone
line?
Mr. Cummins: The program is so sick the book has turned
green.
6637
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I am
encouraged that the minister already sees we are going to be
the government and he is already trying to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Until he is in opposition attacking the
government I wonder if the minister would acknowledge that
province after province has already spoken out against these
proposals. The reason the minister cannot get co-operation from
the provinces is because he is inflexible and unwilling to
decentralize. Is this the minister's idea of co-operative
federalism?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am so kind to
the Reform Party is that I do not want to see it disappear, at least
not this year.
What the hon. member said is not true. There have been
several statements by provincial ministers and leaders saying
that they are interested in a serious process of social reform, that
they want to talk about real consultation, that they want to raise
their issues.
I am not asking them to agree with everything that is in the
paper, but it is very important that they all participate. I am
encouraged to see that they are willing to participate, just as they
were willing to co-operate this past summer. We have been able
to negotiate and sign over seven specific new agreements with
the provincial government to initiate innovative ideas on how to
deliver social programs more effectively.
The best sign of co-operation is when there actually is an
agreement to make something happen. That is what we are doing
with the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the
discussion paper published by the federal government shows a
very clear intent to centralize. Ottawa wants to centralize
increasingly the powers related to education, manpower training
and income security, which, you will agree, are all areas under
provincial jurisdiction. This intent will bring about, as we know,
unproductive and harsh confrontation between Ottawa and the
provincial governments.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify that
while reducing its contribution to social program financing in
Canada, Ottawa insists on imposing increasingly its views on
the provinces by dictating national standards?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should have listened to what the minister said.
He referred to a series of statements in this paper. It is clearly
stated, on page 27, that we are committed to respect the
Constitution. We are proposing, on page 40, a transfer of money
and responsibility for manpower to provinces. We are
proposing, on page 62, the possibility for provinces to opt out in
relation to education and so on.
However, the members opposite are stuck in the rut of their
doctrine. Besides, last week, the head of the government of
Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, in answer to a journalist's question-and
that is why the Opposition is taking this approach-stated, and I
am sorry to quote him in English:
[English]
But I mean after all we are not there to have the system
operate as smoothly as possible. We are there to get out of this
system.
[Translation]
The people across the way accuse us of unwillingness to
co-operate, but it is the separatist leader of Quebec who stated
that they do not want to have anything to do with the federal
government.
(1440)
As for us, what we want to do with this reform is give to all
Canadians and to the workers, including those of Quebec, the
dignity that comes with a job. People are tired of hearing about
separation and Constitution. What they want is jobs, dignity,
training and education. And we will help them.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, need I
remind the Prime Minister that not so long ago he called the
unemployed in Quebec and Canada beer drinkers? We
remember!
Some hon. members: Yes, we remember.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): We remember when he talked less
compassionately about those who suffer because jobs are scarce
and because his government does not care. We know and
remember.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that his government's
centralizing efforts will in fact lead to extremely costly
duplication and overlap between the two levels of government
and does he not realize that, for Quebecers, the only logical
solution is that, to live in a satisfactory way, they must have
their own policies, their own government, their own state and
their own country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for confirming what Mr. Parizeau said.
They want the status quo, they do not want changes. They do not
want the well-being of Canadians, they do not want them to
regain their dignity by working. They have only one obsession,
which is their petty constitutional fight for the separation of
Quebec, but they do not even have the courage to say to
Quebecers that they are separatists.
They invent words like ``souverainiste'', which is not even in
the French dictionary. They sometimes use the word
``indépendantiste'', and the first time this word appeared in the
dictionary, it said that it was a regional term meaning Quebec
separatist.
6638
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening very carefully to the answers that the human
resources minister has been giving and the answer to every one
is the same: Attack the questioner. I believe the minister is
making a virtue of this consultation process as an excuse for
inaction.
Will the minister of human resources tell us when we can
expect legislation from this no action plan to be tabled in this
House.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would not want to interfere
with the hon. member's own particular form of self destruction
by admitting in the House of Commons, the place of the people,
the place where we are supposed to express the voice of
Canadians that he has no interest in talking to Canadians, no
interest in involving Canadians, no interest on behalf of the
Reform Party in having any kind of discussion to allow
Canadians to make decisions.
The when is now. We tabled the paper. Parliament began to
debate it today. Everybody speaks on behalf of Canadians. Get
up on your feet and debate for a change.
(1445 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
this answer absolutely proves what I have been saying: attack
the questioner.
We have been discussing and consulting now for one year.
Could the minister make a commitment today that he will not
allow any factors to interfere with or delay in any way the much
needed social policy reform that should be happening now, not a
year or two from now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, all members of the Reform Party
produced after a year of discussion was a statement that said
they were going to cut $15 billion from seniors' pensions, from
children and from education. We do not want that kind of
decision making process. That is why we want to go to the
people of Canada. Let them be heard and let the committee and
Parliament start right now.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I really do not mind being ignored from time to
time, but I cannot even hear my colleagues any more.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. With its discussion paper, Ottawa wants to justify
its intervention in workforce training, and I quote: ``The role of
the federal government in helping people improve their skills
derives from its general responsibility to foster better national
economic performance-''
Are we to understand that the federal government definitely
rejects the consensus reached by all stakeholders in Quebec and
refuses to transfer the responsibility for manpower force
training?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read
the book he would know that last spring the federal government
had already tabled a new interim proposal on manpower training
with every province that would provide the transfer of the
purchase of training to the provinces. It would provide for the
development of guichets uniques, single co-locations the
provinces would initiate that would transfer several programs
related to education under the management of the provinces and
would have a joint planning priority wherein the provinces
would have a direct role in the planning of federal programs in
those provinces.
We said that was the first major step toward decentralizing the
management of manpower training programs across the country.
When we complete this reform and see more directly what the
programs are then we can discuss further. It seems to me that is a
positive first step toward giving the provinces more
responsibility in the area of manpower training.
I would ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to
support that or not.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, even the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, Daniel
Johnson, refused this unacceptable offer.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his stubbornness will
cost Quebec alone more than $500 million of wasted spending in
the next two years and that the unemployed will continue to be
the victims of the present mess the existence of which the
federal government admits in its discussion paper?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first the figure used by the hon.
member has no bearing whatsoever. As members well know we
have had major discussions with the previous Quebec
government on how we could begin to undertake major
programs.
For example, we had negotiated with the previous
government four very important ways in which the federal
government could support provincial initiatives by helping
them with the APPORT program, helping them to support major
programs for education of young people on social assistance and
developing programs in which we could have co-locations.
6639
We announced just two weeks ago the establishment of a
major new women's resource centre in the constituency of his
seatmate, which I think the hon. member sitting next to him
applauded. We are showing that the federal government is
flexible. We are showing a spirit of co-operation that has not
been shown in the country in a long time.
All I would ask is one thing, that the hon. member go back and
ask if the new Government of Quebec is prepared to co-operate
with us.
(1450)
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I would like to ask about a divorced mother of two who
recently wrote about how the system abandoned her when she
tried to get off welfare. She complained the system is so
backward that she had to quit her job in order to better provide
for her family.
What assurances could the minister give this young woman
that her concerns and the concerns of many other women like her
will be taken into account in the reform of these social
programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a
serious question.
In addition to the proposals that were contained in the green
book dealing with major support for child care, a major attempt
by my colleague to deal with the enforcement of child support
orders and major new programs of employment enhancement,
we have indicated in the green book that we are prepared to work
with the provinces to free up many of the existing rules in the
delivery of social assistance that provide penalties or
disincentives for women on social assistance to go back to work.
One of the things I find sort of terrible and really obsolescent
is that we confiscate close to 70 per cent of any earned income if
a woman wants to go back to work; we figure we have to take
back the benefits. As soon as the provinces reciprocate, we as a
federal government are prepared to renegotiate the Canada
Assistance Plan to make sure that particular condition will be
changed and the woman the hon. member talked about can go to
work.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, according to
a document leaked to the Toronto Star the government has a
hidden agenda as far as HRD is concerned.
Could the minister assure Canadians that he does not have a
plan in his back pocket that would further tax away the hard
earned income and savings of Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, there is no secret plan. There is
no hidden agenda. We have put very clearly in the green book
exactly what the fiscal parameters will be. We made very clear
what we want Canadians to go through.
Furthermore I wish the hon. member would talk to his leader
and other colleagues. They seem to be saying that they do not
want any consultations. They want the government to impose a
plan. We are saying quite the opposite. We want to give
Canadians a right to consult with us and tell us what they think
the priorities should be.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, it is just as I
expected. Our questions go unanswered as usual. I wish the
minister would actually come up with a plan whereby he could
tell us yes or no, whether this implies there will be more tax for
Canadians.
I ask the minister again: Would he tell us whether this means
more tax implications for Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): No.
The Speaker: I think that was the quickest no on record.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development. We read in the
document presented yesterday by the minister that the federal
government intends to cut $2.6 billion dollars in cash transfer
payments for post-secondary education.
Does the minister realize that by reducing cash transfer
payments for post-secondary education to provinces, he will
force them to double tuition fees, thus making higher education
less accessible?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up one of
the more serious misunderstandings.
Let me just say that under the present formula, under the
existing arrangements, the cash portion of the transfer of
post-secondary education is declining every year. It is going
down. It is ratcheting down further over a period of time.
The reason is that the revenue is going to the provinces
because tax points are going up. The provinces are getting more
money each year. As a result that cash portion goes down
accordingly by the ratio under the existing arrangements.
6640
(1455 )
We are trying to say that before that ratcheting takes place,
before that reduction causes the cash flow to disappear, let us
take the money we have and work together to set up a brand new
program of social assistance that will provide a much broader
range of real support for students to go back to school, broader
accessibility not only for 18-year-olds or 21-year-olds but for
all Canadians who want to go back to school.
This is the whole idea of very important creative federalism
and of finding ways of using the money we now have to turn it
into three or four billion additional dollars going back into the
educational system.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, does the minister
not realize that besides doubling tuition fees, his reform helps to
double students' indebtedness, as was confirmed by a Treasury
Board note made public in today's Toronto Star?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that
tuition rates have already doubled over the past four or five
years under the existing system. They are going up at the rate of
10 per cent or 15 per cent every year. That is hurting students
right now because they cannot afford it. Furthermore it is
providing a major deterrent for people who are already in the
workforce and want to go back to school.
We are saying let's broaden, deepen and widen the amount of
money available to students. Let's also put in place a brand new
repayment scheme that would allow students to pay back
according to the income they earn, not according to a flat rate
like we have presently.
When students graduate they would pay it back according to
their their income. If they had a high income they would pay it
right back. If they had a low income they would take their time.
If they had no income they would not pay at all until they got an
income. That is what we are trying to do to ensure total and open
accessibility for all Canadians.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development has stated that part of the
solution to child poverty is more government funded day care, a
plan that would cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.
Will the minister consider saving tax dollars and providing
better child care by offering tax incentives for informal child
care arrangements?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read
the green book he would see two very important facts. One is
that 70 per cent of families with two parents are now working.
That puts an enormous stress on those families in terms of their
children, but they have to work because that is the way they get
sufficient income. The second is that about 60 per cent of
children in single parent homes are under the poverty level
because their parent cannot go back to work.
A key to changing both those conditions to provide major
support for working families, to encourage and give incentives
for sole parents to go back to work, is to provide good, serious,
decent child care. That is what the government is committed to.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, if we did
something about the tax burden people are carrying they would
not have to both work; they would be able to stay home.
The minister is suggesting that state run day care is somehow
better able to provide care for their children. Does the minister
not realize that another important option is to allow parents the
choice of caring for their children themselves? Will he look at
this option in his review?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, in the green book we clearly say
that one of the major areas of reform that will be required is to
look at how we can provide broader coverage under some of our
security programs for people who are engaging in part time
work, mini-work or flexi-work, so that there can be a lot more
opportunity and availability for parents to spend time with their
children.
One of the disincentives right now is that under
unemployment insurance and other areas many of those people
do not have any income security protection whatsoever. We
included very specifically in the green book that we wanted to
look at how we could extend coverage of security programs so
that people could spend more time with their children.
That is the kind of reform we want to make. We hope the
Reform Party will support it.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As the minister knows the three main industries in Atlantic
Canada, in P.E.I. in particular, are agriculture, fisheries and
tourism. These are all seasonal industries for obvious reasons.
6641
Could the minister indicate to the House how he plans to deal
with the issue of people who are seasonally employed? These
people are needed, are trained and need UI for the winter.
(1500 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a
very important question.
As he knows, we make specific mention in the green book that
we have to look very carefully at the circumstances facing
seasonal workers. For example, we have already set up a
working group with the building and trades council to look at
what happens in the construction trade. We are now working
closely with them to find an answer.
We are also planning to establish a special working group in
the next few days to deal with seasonal workers per se. That
group will talk to those workers, the industries and the provinces
affected so that once again we can provide a flexible, tailored
response to meet the needs of seasonal workers.
There is another innovation we introduced this week, and you
will be interested in this, Mr. Speaker. It is a special pilot project
we provided in Prince Edward Island. It will allow seasonal
workers to use their uninsurable weeks, those weeks when they
only work part time during the week, to be pulled together to get
an insurable week and therefore establish a broader work time.
That stretches out the work week. That means we give more
people more time to work. That is the kind of innovation and
reform this country needs and we will continue to provide it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the leader of the government in the House. I would like to
know what the business of the House will be when we return next
week.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, it is my intention to make a statement on another kind
of human resources development, that is parliamentary
resources.
[English]
We will continue this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow
with the debate on social security programs.
When the House returns on October 17 from the Thanksgiving
break the Standing Committee on Finance will shift into high
gear. Following the reference to hold prebudget hearings in
accordance with the new rules adopted by this House last winter,
I wish to confirm that the Minister of Finance will be appearing
before the finance committee on both Monday, October 17 and
Tuesday, October 18. The committee will then consult a broad
range of Canadians on what they want to see in the next budget.
Under our standing orders the committee will report its
observations and conclusions to this House by December 2. We
would hope to set aside a significant amount of time before we
adjourn for Christmas two weeks after that in order to permit as
many members as possible to express their views as well.
Putting this process into operation for the first time represents
a new and more open and democratic approach toward budget
making. I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for his
warm and enthusiastic endorsement of our new procedures.
Turning to more immediate matters for the consideration of
the House, the first item to be put before us here in the House on
October 17 will be report stage and third reading of Bill C-49,
the agriculture and agri-food department reorganization. We
will then return to the second reading debates on the other
departmental reorganizations, Bill C-46 on industry, followed
by Bill C-48 on natural resources, followed by Bill C-52 on
public works and government services, followed by Bill C-53
on Canadian heritage.
We will then return to second reading debate on Bill C-41
regarding sentencing.
The business I have announced will carry us to mid-week.
The House will know there are two government bills on the
notice paper today for introduction tomorrow. We would
propose to call second reading of these two bills late in the week
we return or early in the week after.
(1505)
Some members may wish more time when we return for the
social security debate which is now under way. It will also be
necessary to designate some early opposition days. However I
think it would be better to consult with my colleagues opposite
before making any firm and final announcements on this. I ask
the House to stand by. My next statement will give those details.
_____________________________________________
6641
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I think you might find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
6642
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be
authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories
during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation, and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, yesterday we adopted an order
of this House to extend the sitting tonight until 9 p.m. However,
because of ministerial statements this morning approximately
one-half hour of normal debating time was deducted from that
which would otherwise have been time for hon. members to
speak on today's order of the House.
After consultation with members across I think you will find
there is consent to extend the sitting tonight by yet another half
hour, that is to say until 9.30 p.m. to enable more hon. members
to make their comments.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6642
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam
Speaker, I am so disappointed with the government's
mishandling of the opportunity we had to really reform
Canada's social safety net. Our social safety net is full of holes
and it seems like the minister is trying to shove it full of paper.
It is clear the government is without direction. This is a
government without priorities. This is a government without a
sense of urgency. This is a government without a long term
perspective.
This is not an action plan as promised in the motion
introduced by the minister in January and passed by this House.
This is not even a good discussion paper. The minister's no
action plan says there is a problem with overspending. His paper
says that our social programs do not work. His paper says that
people are becoming dependent on government handouts.
However, any common sense person would come to the
conclusion it is the government that is the problem.
The minister goes on to suggest that the answer to all these
problems is more government programs. People tell me that
none of this would be happening if the government would just
take its greedy fingers out of people's pockets and let them run
their own affairs.
How much will each alternative proposed in the no action plan
cost to implement? What will be the social impact and
consequences for each of the alternatives proposed in this no
action plan? How many jobs will be created by each alternative?
How can Canadians make an informed choice if they do not even
have an assessment of the costs and the benefits for the proposed
alternatives? How can Canadians make an informed choice if
they do not know whether their own lives will be better or worse
under the Liberal alternatives?
In yesterday's press conference the minister responded to
questions about whether the cuts from social programs would be
$1.5 billion or $7.5 billion by saying that fiscal parameters were
already set and that there would be other changes in fiscal
arrangements. What does the minister mean by other changes in
fiscal arrangements? There can only be spending cuts or raising
taxes. Will the minister admit that there will be no cuts or will he
tell Canadians by how much they can expect their taxes to
increase?
(1510)
I would like to focus my response to the no action plan on the
alternatives proposed for the unemployment insurance program
and the so-called employment initiatives. I might remind
everyone that unemployment insurance is the only program
clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government under
the Constitution of Canada. All of the other programs the
minister talks about in his no action plan are under the
jurisdiction of the provinces.
The Angus Reid survey released by the government this
summer clearly shows that the majority of Canadians think
training and employment programs should be delivered by the
provinces, not the federal government. The problem with this
government is that it refuses to give up programs that do not
work, programs that were not the government's in the first place.
Going back to unemployment insurance, the minister has
failed to explore all the options that are open to Canadians with
respect to UI. The Reform blue book policy has said for years
that UI programs should be based on true insurance principles
and administered by the employees and the employers who pay
those premiums.
UI premiums come right out of the pockets of the workers,
whether they are paid by the employees or their employers. Did
the minister not once consider that the employees and employers
who pay the premiums might not like the government taking
their money and doing just anything it pleased with it? Did the
minister consider that? Did he make it an option?
Did the minister even consider that the UI program should be
voluntary rather than compulsory? Why is this option of giving
employers and employees control of their program not
included? That is a grave omission and one the minister should
correct immediately.
6643
The no action plan proposes using UI premiums for
employment development rather than straight unemployment
insurance as it was originally intended. This is an average of
about $1,500 per year for each worker in Canada, money that
comes directly out of the pockets of each worker. UI premiums
are the second largest source of revenue for the government,
next to personal income tax.
The minister is picking the pockets of the workers without
their consent. This is just another cash cow the Liberals are
trying to milk. The minister should be asking if this is what the
workers who pay the premiums want, but that option is
mysteriously omitted from this book. The government wants
more control, not less, and it is not an option given to the
Canadian people to decide upon.
The paper is full of so-called new ideas for helping people
with job searches, personal counselling, training and so on. The
problem is they are actually old ideas. For instance, the
American 1988 jobs initiative was highly touted but proved to
be a dismal failure. There is no meaningful analysis of why
government has botched such things in the past so there is no
suggestion about how to do it better the next time. There are
some who claim that subsidized job training works, but oddly
enough the OECD just took a hard look at this and rejected it as a
failure. Yet this government thinks it is possible.
The 1960s Liberal thinking has failed and the countries that
Liberals and NDPers used to hold up as shining examples of this
are now in trouble. Sweden has cut housing subsidies. Norway is
tightening disability payments. France requires those on social
assistance to enrol in work training schemes. The Netherlands
has set its social assistance at 50 per cent of minimum wage.
Germany and Italy are raising the age at which pensions can be
claimed. In Britain income support is available only on the basis
of need and only after passing a means test. You decide who to
believe: the so-called compassionate politicians that have got
us in this mess, or the Reformers who have a plan to get us out.
(1515)
The dribble in this paper about flexibility, about creating
opportunity, about addressing individual needs, about
minimizing waste and so on is just a bunch of hogwash. They are
good intentions without any useful suggestions as to how it
would be accomplished.
Madam Speaker, if you were really hungry and this was
brought forth as food-this green book-after going through
and digesting it, you would still be very hungry. There is no
substance in it. It is like cotton candy. It is so big and it is sweet.
It sounds so good, but it does not fill you up. There is nothing in
here of substance. The one place where there is anything
resembling substance is on UI.
As I explained, there is no action plan, no recommendations,
no priorities but there are two fairly clear options. One is new. It
is called the employment insurance program, which sounds
better than the unemployment insurance program because
employment is better than unemployment of course.
In Saskatchewan we have a little animal called a skunk. It
does not matter what you call that skunk, it still stinks. This
option proposes dividing recipients into frequent and occasional
users. Although it charts the rapid rise in the former category, it
blames it on globalization, not on the program itself.
I believe that if you want to get people off UI you have to quit
paying them to be unemployed. Although the paper admits the
difficulty of defining the two categories, then points to regional
complexities, it makes no useful suggestion as to what should
actually be done; nor is there any analysis of the perverse
incentives that might be created thereby, or of the dual
bureaucracy it would generate.
It does recommend lower benefits and job programs for
frequent users. However it notes that job programs might
require more money, not less. Then it says that UI has become a
welfare scheme and it might be a good idea to target it based on
need. Means testing is one possible good idea, although it would
be better to leave welfare to welfare and make UI into real
insurance.
The other option presented is to keep the program as it is, but
to increase the requirements for qualification or reduce the
duration or the amount of the benefits. The review itself notes
that while this would reduce spending it would not address the
many structural flaws in the system.
The discussion paper also mentions eliminating regional
discrimination, which is a good idea, plain and simple. This is a
policy straight from our Reform blue book. What worries me is
that this good idea lacks the trendy, active labour market
orientation to which the minister seems to be committed.
There is no cost benefit analysis here as elsewhere in the
paper for the various options that are listed. Canadians cannot
make choices if they do not know the costs and the benefits,
whether the new situation would be significantly better or worse
than what exists now.
It should be noted very strongly that the minister's alleged
options paper certainly does not lay out all the options. That is
one thing we must be clear about. Conspicuously absent are
allowing employers and employees to administer
unemployment insurance; voluntary versus compulsory
unemployment insurance; a return to true insurance
policies-none of these are in there-and finally, making no
changes without the consent of the workers and employers who
pay the premiums.
6644
One glaring example of how off base the whole review is is
that it points how much of recently created jobs are in part time,
temporary, self-employed or multiple job sectors, which are
not covered by UI. It even notes that these sectors are growing
precisely because they are not covered by UI. Therefore they
avoid the crushing payroll tax but it calls for the usual creative
ideas for extending UI to these areas.
(1520)
Government does not need any new programs. Lower taxes
and create jobs. The finance minister clearly acknowledges that
very principle and yet it is not clearly contained in this proposal.
The review notes that payroll taxes are bad although it coyly
says that at least in the short run, payroll taxes discourage job
creation, as though in the long run things might be different. It
then discusses trying to create surpluses in good times to avoid
having to raise premiums in bad times when they can least be
afforded. This is a good idea but the funds must be kept separate
from general revenue, not squandered on other things.
If it was a true insurance program this would be unnecessary.
There is no separate fund for unemployment premiums. The
paper contemplates removing the ceiling on earnings, subject to
the payroll tax and lowering the rate so that the incentive to
create exempt part time jobs at the low end would be reduced.
This shows some awareness of perverse incentive but if one
does this, and taxes back the UI at high incomes one is moving
away from a true insurance program. UI encourages
unemployment precisely because it is not true insurance but a
subsidy for those who are not working.
It also canvasses the idea of experience ratings, that is,
moving toward real insurance by basing premiums on previous
employment history. This is a good idea but why not go all the
way?
It must be noted, and it is, that this makes the program more
expensive for those least able to afford it. That is why it should
incorporate a key principle of real insurance. It should be
voluntary.
It proposes reducing premiums for employers who support
training quite apart from the fact that most jobs involve informal
training already. If this is done, then every single employer will
move to have formal training and bigger firms will find it easier
to do so. It will help crush small business and that is very
serious.
I think Canadians will be disappointed, as I was, by the lack of
leadership in the minister's no action plan. The minister has
failed to lay out a clear path to significant reform as promised in
the throne speech.
In those areas where he laid out options, he has not attached a
fiscal price tag. An even greater tragedy is that the human cost
analysis in terms of what improvements this reform will make
are also missing.
How can the minister initiate a substantial debate on social
reform without providing these key pieces in a debate. It is like
trying to teach kids with only the first half of the book or giving
them a test question in math without all the information.
We must admit that the process of social reform is more than
just deficit reduction. The financial constraints are clear enough
but the real problem with Canada's social safety net are the
incentives that the current system is creating for Canadians.
Not only does our safety net need re-evaluation due to fiscal
reasons but the inherent damage that these programs have
created needs serious attention. This is why it is such a tragedy
that neither the fiscal nor the social implications are laid out in
this package.
If the minister is unwilling to lead this debate he faces the
likely prospect that he will be left behind. Social policy must
move beyond the outdated 1960s thinking that has characterized
today's social programs. We need to admit that many of the
assumptions underlying Canada's social programs are damaging
Canadian lives.
We see increasing welfare and UI dependence. We see
increasing amounts of students unprepared for the school to
work transition. We see rising tax burdens. We see increasing
family disintegration.
(1525 )
What are Reformers saying about these failures of Canada's
social safety net? It is time to recognize the failure of the 1960s
Liberal thinking and move toward the 21st century with real
Reform thinking.
It is time to question universality. It is time to target social
programs to those who are truly in need. It is time to recognize
that we do not have the money to pay for all our social programs.
It is time to consider affordable programs that can be sustained.
It is time to reduce the number of programs and bureaucracy and
consider flexibility, empowerment and put control of the
programs back into the hands of the people.
It is time to recognize the dangers of big, centralized federal
governments and consider community based and family
oriented solutions. It is time to address the inherent dependency
of present social programs and consider self-sufficiency, self-
reliance and personal responsibility. It is time to question
inflexible national standards and consider flexible programs
that are responsive to human and economic reality. It is time to
eliminate shared jurisdiction over programs, eliminate
duplication and overlap and consider clear accountability of
governments.
6645
I feel strongly that this is the greatest boondoggle the
government has come up with yet. We had this big drum roll
before this was introduced, a big fanfare. We expected a good
act. Then the inaction plan whimpered out on to the stage. Is
this all there is?
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Liberal government still think that outmoded solutions can be
applied to modern problems. If he is unwilling to take on sacred
cows, he is likely to get trampled by the whole herd.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I wish to
indicate, pursuant to our standing orders, that after the speech of
the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, that all
subsequent speakers from the government side will be sharing
their time. In other words, two 10-minute speeches as opposed
to one 20-minute speech per round.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt):
Madam Speaker, as one of the other members from the province
of Saskatchewan I feel I cannot let the kind of comments I just
heard from the hon. member from my home province go
unchallenged.
He has dismissed the discussion paper today as hogwash. I
cannot pretend to be more of an expert on hogwash than my
colleague in the Reform Party. I will leave that unchallenged.
I listened as well to his analogy about eating the green book. I
suspect that is where his difficulty has come from, in not
understanding that the green book is for reading and not for
eating. Perhaps that is why he is having so much difficulty.
Speaking of reading, I suspect that it is a failure to read the
book and the predisposition to eat it that has caused the complete
lack of understanding of what this discussion paper is about.
One point the hon. member raised is some notion he has that
the federal government is hoping to seize power over provincial
concerns. I did not think the Reform Party was concerned about
constitutional issues, according to their statements during last
year's political campaign. However, leaving that aside for a
moment, the green book clearly states that it is the minister's
intention to co-operate with the provinces on such things as
education-learning in chapter 3.
I refer the member to page 19 of the summary where it clearly
states that the federal government is looking for ways to expand
access to education by co-operating with the provinces in
finding ways to make the most of our shrinking resources and
putting our talents to use that way.
If it is not expecting too much for the hon. member to turn to
page 19, I refer him to the preface of the book where the minister
clearly states that in his consultations with Canadians he hopes
to work in partnership with all levels of government.
(1530 )
In all sincerity I listened to the hon. member and his
colleagues in last year's campaign. I heard fine words from them
about doing a new style of politics, looking at a plan on its
merits and not simply criticising every possible aspect without
giving time to consider the plan to possibly say: ``Well we don't
like this part, but we do like that part''. Instead, what I am
hearing from the hon. member is an outright denial of any merit
in this plan.
I would just ask him to justify taking that point of view and
then to honestly state to this House that he can find nothing in
here. Perhaps he could comment on why he is not prepared to
involve himself, as all other Canadians will be doing, in the
process of bringing forth their ideas for weaving together our
social safety net and making it stronger. Why does he not do that
instead of simply taking out his machete, or whatever the proper
analogy would be for someone in hogwash, slashing it down and
letting Canadians fall with it.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate my colleague's sense of humour. However, I do not
think it is very funny when we look at what is really in this paper.
First she criticized my remarks in regard to the power the
federal government is trying to exercise over the provinces. If
she had read this green paper she would realize the federal
government is trying to take away control from the provinces in
areas the Constitution of Canada has given them, such as
training and education. Those are provincial responsibilities and
this government is trying to get more and more involved in those
areas.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member how
incorrect she is when she says the government is trying to get the
co-operation of the provinces. That is pure talk and no action.
The government is giving the provinces less and less funding,
but is continuing to maintain control. That is co-operation?
Obviously not. You cannot expect the provinces to co-operate if
you do not give them more control. I think that is a very serious
accusation the hon. member has made. I think the Bloc members
over here have some very legitimate concerns about this federal
government taking over provincial jurisdiction. We ought to
listen once in a while at least.
The hon. member also said that I did not see anything good in
the paper. Obviously she was not listening very well to my
speech because there are some options in here which we
commend. For example, in unemployment insurance the
reduction in the duration of benefits is a good thing. I have
mentioned that. To reduce the level of benefits, to have income
testing, to have all of these things I said are very good.
6646
However, I also said that not all of the options were included.
She said I am not getting involved in the debate. She has not
been in this House very much if she does not know that we have
made many suggestions to this government in previous
speeches which it has not read and not included in these
options.
That is what I was saying again today. Why are these options
not included? Why are these options so narrow? Why is the
government trying to have more control over the lives of
Canadians rather than letting them have more jurisdiction over
programs like unemployment insurance?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member's speech, and I am about to do
something unusual for me and stand up for my colleague in the
Reform Party even if, in many respects, we do not share that
party's views.
Our colleague is a member of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources. As far as I know, he was present during all
proceedings and did take part in the first phase of consultation.
That is why I am asking him this question.
Does my colleague consider that the consultations our
committee held last winter and last spring are reflected in this
working paper? We were supposed to get an action plan, but
what we got is simply a working paper and a series of options.
We were supposed to get something by mid-April, and then in
June. Here were are in October, and the implementation is now
postponed until next year. Is this a disappointment for the hon.
member?
(1535 )
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, the
answer is obvious. Yes, I am very disappointed.
Look at what this government is doing and the time line this
government has laid before us. Back in January or February the
government said it would put down an action plan and it would
come forth in April. Then the government postponed it to
September. Now in October we have more discussion.
If we look at what is going to happen in the future, if we
follow this whole process through, now the government is
saying we are going to go through a consultation process.
Consultation is fine, but if it is just an excuse for more inaction,
I cannot find that acceptable.
Then the government said it was going to introduce
legislation in the fall of next year, 1995. That legislation is
going to be debated, it is going to go through committee, it is
going to go through first, second and third readings and that all
takes time in this House. That brings us to 1996, the year before
the election.
I ask: Does anyone think this government is going to seriously
make some big changes just before the election? The answer is
obvious. I do not think we are going to have substantial
changes. After one year of inaction and another couple of years
of debating and fiddling around with this thing, I do not think
this government is seriously committed to really doing anything
with social programs.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Madam Speaker, I welcome this historic opportunity to
participate in the debate on the reform of Canada's social
security system which this government has launched.
I also welcome the challenge of chairing the House of
Commons committee that will seek the views of Canadians over
the next few months on the proposals for reform which the
Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in this House
yesterday. I want to say a few words later in my remarks about
how the committee proposes to hear from Canadians on this
important issue.
There are few dimensions of being Canadian that resonate
more strongly in the hearts of all of us than the sense that we are
a caring, compassionate and tolerant society. These
fundamental national values find their most tangible expression
in the framework of social programs that together we have built
through our federal, provincial and municipal governments over
the past half century to provide support, income security and
dignity to those less fortunate members of our society in times
of need.
These programs, unemployment insurance, the Canada
assistance plan, the Canada student loans program, and the
system of federal-provincial co-operation in the funding and
support of higher education in Canada, the family allowance and
its successor programs, the child tax credit and the child benefit
payments for families with children have been responses by
reform minded Canadians to real needs crying out to be met.
They were inspired by a vision of a better Canada and a
willingness in the pursuit of that vision to overcome the
overwhelming drag of the status quo and the straitjacket of
existing institutions to find ways to realize on that vision.
The great bulk of the national programs that comprise the
social security system in Canada today were put in place by
successive Liberal governments. They form a proud legacy of
this party to the building of Canada. We on this side of the House
have every reason and every incentive to want to preserve the
social security system and its values which is at the core of our
political inheritance.
Why would a Liberal government be proposing to review and
reform the very programs with which it has been so identified
over the years? For the very same reasons that led our
predecessors to defy conventional wisdom and overcome the
resistance to change in order to create these programs in the first
place.
6647
The Liberal Party of Canada is not the party of the status quo.
It is the party of reform. It is the party that has been willing
to take on the risks and challenges of guiding and leading
Canadians into the future, a future which may not always be
fully visible.
(1540)
The destitution and despair of the great depression called for
the creation of programs such as unemployment insurance and
new arrangements for assisting provinces and municipalities in
helping those in need. These arrangements and other initiatives
by federal governments have been met with all kinds of
objections for why they could not be funded or why they could
not be carried out. So too this Liberal government in the spirit of
its predecessors finds itself today challenging the status quo in
order to bring Canadians into a brighter future.
We on this side of the House were not elected just to defend
the status quo. We were elected to confront the real problems
that face Canadians today.
One of the real problems confronting Canadians today is the
one million children who in the midst of this abundant land live
in poverty because their parents and more often than not their
single parents for a whole host of reasons are denied access to
the means to earn a decent living for themselves. As a result,
these children are born short changed on the promise of being
Canadian.
A real problem facing Canadians today is a stubbornly high
level of unemployment which exists side by side in good and bad
times with a growing number of jobs which fail to get created or
go unfilled because there are no Canadians trained to take them.
Increasingly the profile of the jobless is not the individual who
is between jobs for a few months. It is the long term unemployed
whose skills are out of date for the current economy and who
cannot get the support to obtain the training necessary to rejoin
the labour force.
In the face of this reality our unemployment insurance system
which was developed and designed to serve as a temporary
bridge between jobs is increasingly being used by a smaller and
smaller share of recipients year after year as a form of almost
guaranteed annual income. The result is that notwithstanding
major increases in UI payments in recent years the number of
unemployed who are helped is decreasing and the ability of
government through these programs to assist the unemployed to
get into the job market is being more and more curtailed.
In an effort to contain UI costs in recent years a host of
regulations have been erected that forced the unemployed into
dependency traps and often bizarre lifestyle choices. Most
Canadian families know that the system is not working. While
the proposals in the government document may not be the only
solutions, it is clear that more than tinkering is necessary.
The focus of this reform exercise is not deficit reduction.
However Canadians know that with a government debt that
costs taxpayers more than $40 billion a year in interest charges
alone to service, we cannot ignore the cost of this deficit as a
consideration in the future programs we undertake as
Canadians. If Canadians do not begin as a society to gain control
over the mountain of debt and to reduce the deficit which is
adding to it we may find that our social programs will not be
determined by us but by the international bond agencies that buy
our bonds.
These are some of the real problems which this review of
social programs and the other elements of the government's jobs
and growth agenda are meant to address and in which all
Canadians are being invited to participate. The focus for this
participation will be the Parliament of Canada and specifically
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development which has been asked by the
government to carry out broad consultations on these reform
proposals.
We will begin our work immediately, hearing from the
minister of human resources himself the day MPs return from
the parliamentary recess on October 17. We will meet with
experts and national associations in Ottawa to hear their
reactions and ideas to the government's proposals.
(1545 )
Beginning November 14 in Whitehorse, Yukon, our
committee will begin an intensive five week program of cross
Canada hearings and consultations which will take us to every
province and territory in this great country to hear firsthand
what Canadians want from their social security system and what
improvements they have to suggest to the government's
proposals.
Today we will be making public the schedule of the
committee's travels and details on how Canadians can
participate in the work of this committee. I encourage Canadians
to make contact with the clerk of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development by phone, fax or letter for
information on the committee's schedule and how they can get
involved.
In addition to the committee's consultations, we are
encouraging individual members of Parliament to carry out their
own consultations, to hold public assemblies and town hall
meetings in order to obtain the views of their constituents on the
proposals and to bring the results of their consultations forward
to the committee for its consideration in the preparation of its
final report.
The views and recommendations which result from these
consultations will form an important element in the response of
Parliament to the ideas in the government's discussion paper.
6648
[Translation]
As chairman of the Standing Committee of Human Resources,
I had the chance to hear the views of Canadians of all social
conditions and of all regions. The message they sent is quite
clear. They are proud of a system that could assist many people
in the past, but that simply is no longer working well enough.
Our existing system is too easily misused, it does not meet the
needs of many people, and it is out of touch with the present
social and economic reality. During the last 20 years, many
traditional sectors in our economy have had to struggle to
survive, and undergo fundamental changes. Many traditional
jobs have disappeared and been replaced by jobs requiring more
education, training and upgrading of skills.
Since 1976, the long-term unemployment rate has tripled
because of those changes. More and more people have had to go
on unemployment insurance repeatedly, while struggling to
adjust to new requirements. Today, almost 40 per cent of
recipients have been on unemployment insurance at least three
times in the last five years.
The number of people on welfare has doubled since 1981.
Three million Canadians are now on welfare and the cost of
social assistance provided under the Canada Assistance Plan has
gone up from less than $3 billion to more than $8 billion a year.
Chronic unemployment and the increasing number of people
who so often claim unemployment insurance show that people
are not receiving the help they need.
Too many young people drop out of school without being
ready to be part of the labour force. Too many people on welfare
or low income earners find themselves in a position where they
cannot afford to develop their skills or cannot do it because of
the system.
Too many people whose career has been cut short because of
changing conditions do not get the training they need. First and
foremost, we must find solutions based on the new consensus in
terms of principles and priorities and the mechanisms to
implement them.
The reform goals and principles outlined in the working paper
reflect what Canadians have told me. We must now set out to
take action on principles and priorities through the
implementation of concrete ideas on how to make the best use of
our money in order to meet our main objectives.
(1550)
There are several proposals in the working paper and they are
obviously open for discussion. Given the restrictions about
government expenditures, we will have to make difficult
choices as to the priorities that we have, as a country, in order to
implement some of these proposals contained in the working
document.
We have the opportunity to work together and to establish a
better system for the future. A system that will be efficient and
that will give some hope to parents, children, workers, people
looking for jobs, future generations and Canadians across the
country.
Next February, I intend to report to this House on the
consultations made by the Standing Committee. Once the
consultations are over and the Canadians have made their
priorities known, this government will introduce a bill to
establish a new social security system. Let us see to it that this
bill truly reflects what Canadians want and what they need, that
is a fair, efficient and affordable social security system we will
believe in and which will bring us into the 21th century.
[English]
The time has come for a focused vigorous debate on what we
can achieve, on what we must achieve through social security
reform. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to help
ensure Canadians can take part in this debate. This is a matter for
all Canadians, not just interest groups and not just governments.
We have to move the discussion to the coffee shops, the dinner
table, the boardrooms, classrooms and union halls. We have to
listen closely to what people are saying. All Canadians will have
an opportunity to examine these suggestions, to propose new
ones and to help define the priorities for reform.
As chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, I look forward to holding public hearings across
the country. I intend to ensure that these hearings are as
complete and as accessible as possible.
If at all possible, I want anyone who wants to take part to have
an opportunity to so. The government will organize consultation
seminars across the country. These will provide a broad range of
Canadians the opportunity to take part in an intense examination
of the issues and priorities for social security reform.
We will have public meetings in all major centres to bring the
discussion of reform to the grassroots of our country. Groups
such as labour unions, business and professional associations or
service groups are encouraged to organize their own reform
consultations and to make their views known.
We will make detailed information and material available to
both individuals and groups, setting out the facts on social
security, the objectives and principles proposed by the
governments as well as the ideas for reform outlined in this
discussion paper.
We will provide individuals with a workbook to help people
work through the reform issues, identify their priorities and
concerns and provide direct feedback to the government. I
encourage all members of this House to take part, not only by
making their own views known but by making information
available to their constituents, encouraging their participation,
gathering their views and passing them on.
6649
This is a unique opportunity to move the debate on social
security beyond the traditional confines of narrow ideologies.
It is an opportunity to go beyond the traditional debates about
cutting programs or spending our way out of trouble. Today,
that kind of narrow vision misses the point.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to appeal to Atlantic
Canada in particular and to the constituents whom I am
honoured to represent here in the House of Commons. No region
in Canada has a greater stake in the success of this reform
exercise than Atlantic Canada.
No region has been more reliant on the income security
system than Atlantic Canada and for good reason. Because of
their historical position in Confederation and the nature of their
economy over the years the people of Atlantic Canada have by
necessity been forced to rely on the income security system
more than the country as a whole. In many parts of Atlantic
Canada the people know the adversity we have recently had to
deal with because of crises in our natural resource industry such
as the fishery in some places, forestry and other industries and
other sectors on which we are traditionally reliant.
(1555)
The people of Atlantic Canada may well feel concerned. They
may feel nervous. They may feel that their concerns are not
being addressed or will not be addressed in a future social
security system.
For that reason there may be a temptation not to participate.
However, I would encourage and appeal particularly to the
people of Atlantic Canada to be a full player and full partners
with the government in redesigning an income security system
that will serve them as well as the rest of Canada so that
rebuilding the economy of this country can be achieved.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
listening to my colleague, I realize it is true that the deficit is
very high. It is true that we pay $40 billion just in debt charges.
And I agree that something has to be done about it. But at the
same time, I wonder why the debt has grown so much. How did
that happen?
Why does a country like Canada have to pay so much interest
on its debt, a country said to be rich, rich in natural resources as
well as human resources? How is that possible? If we look back,
what party was in power in Canada before this government and
the previous Conservative government? The Liberals. They are
the ones who have put into debt to a dramatic extent not only our
generation, but also and mainly our children and grandchildren.
They are the ones who should bear the responsibility. Today,
we take stock and, of course, realize that the situation has
become unbearable. So, they have to take the bull by the horns
and they will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. When a
family experiences financial difficulties, what does it do? There
were prosperous times for this family in the past, but what does
it do now? The first thing to go is one of the two cars it owns.
Then the cottage. That is where cuts start in families. Do they
start by taking away the bread and butter from the table for the
children?
As I see it, this reform will penalize the poorest of the poor.
There are two categories of unemployed workers; first, the good
ones, that is to say those who require almost no assistance, who
are out of work on a temporary basis. The second category
includes people from my region who are seasonal workers such
as silviculture workers. These people want to work. I know, I
was the president of their society for many years and they would
tell me: ``Give us work. We want to work.'' We could do nothing
for them.
(1600)
What is happening here is that these people, who want to work
and put their hearts into their work, will be penalized. When
spring comes, they get all anxious. They wonder: ``Will there be
work for us?'' And the industry does its very best to find work
for them, in co-operation with the town councils, companies,
producers' syndicates, and to put them to work. But work
eventually runs out and, every year, these workers end up on
unemployment again, naturally. These people will be penalized.
In my region in particular, and I like to stress this point
because students tell me to repeat this every occasion I have, the
university is far from home, and the Univervité du Québec in
Rimouski offers only certain programs. This means going away
to Quebec City, Montreal or elsewhere to study. If cuts are made
in postsecondary education, then our students will get further
into debt, and this is true for all students in Canada of course. It
is estimated that university students with a doctorate are
$50,000 in debt and have no job prospects when they graduate.
Wherever they send a CV, they get the same answer back:
``Sorry, we have no work for you''.
I fail to understand why, after putting the country this many
billions of dollars into debt, the first thing to be cut -and that
the most infuriating and frustrating-is assistance to the poor,
the underprivileged, those who cannot speak for themselves,
while the rich get to keep their family trusts, for example. The
government does not dare do anything that would affect them.
That is understandable, given they are the ones who fill the
campaign coffers. They fill them and keep filling them. The
other day, a proposal to put election financing in order was
rejected. I commend nonetheless those members opposite who
voted for this proposal. But no thought is given to this. They do
not want to, because friends help one another. It is not the poor,
the vulnerable, who will help my fellow members; it is the
wealthiest.
6650
I strongly deplore this situation, particularly for rural
residents, not to mention Gaspé fishermen who will be hit hard.
I find it unacceptable for my region, for Quebec's rural
ridings-and I imagine it is the same thing elsewhere. I do not
understand how my colleague can say that these measures will
be good for the most vulnerable. If he can prove it to me, let
him do so.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member
opposite and his concern about the Canadian debt and about the
most vulnerable in our society.
I think that the best way to start reducing the Canadian debt
burden-this is not the time to explain why the debt is so
high-is to put Canadians back to work, create ideal conditions
for economic growth and, at the same time, find ways to reduce
overlap and duplication and other problems preventing people
from finding work and undergoing training and development
when needed, so that we can improve the economic picture,
given Canada's existing prospects. A dramatic example of that
can be found in rural regions like mine, in the eastern regions
that are dependent on ailing industries such as fishing.
(1605)
The purpose of this debate is to get from members on both
sides of the House concrete ideas that will allow us as a
government and as a society to create conditions favourable to
economic growth and job creation, reduce the debt burden and,
more important, promote the dignity attached to employment, to
income and to Canadians' ability to work and support their
families. That is the challenge issued by this debate to this
House and to all Canadians.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, as the Official
Opposition's training and youth critic, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on the social program reform proposed
by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I am also, as a member of the Committee on Human Resources
Development, pleased to participate because, as you know,
Madam Speaker, with two of my opposition colleagues, I was
involved in all the proceedings of the first consultation phase.
We heard many people express their opinions on this.
Unfortunately, I must tell you right off the bat that I am
disappointed with this proposal when we were expecting an
action plan. This discussion paper almost invites us to scrap last
winter's consultations and start over.
As the training and youth critic, I will focus on the education
part of the discussion paper issued by the Minister of Human
Resources Development. I say education because that is what it
means. Although the third section of the minister's discussion
paper is called ``Learning: Making lifelong learning a way of
life'', they are clearly talking about education. This section
nonetheless contains elements that will affect post-secondary
education systems in Quebec and Canada.
Again, may I remind you that, under the 1867 Canadian
Constitution, education is a provincial jurisdiction. The
discussion paper released by the Minister of Human Resources
Development even included the following statement, on page
57: ``In Canada, education falls within provincial jurisdiction''.
While admitting this fact, the federal government also points to
training-related problems and uses them to justify its continued
involvement in the field of education.
It is obvious, when you read this document, that the federal
government has no intention of withdrawing from the field of
education, even though it is a vital provincial sector,
particularly for Quebec, since our identity as a nation is at stake.
The most contradictory aspect of this paper is the fact that,
while the government expresses a will to tighten controls and
centralize even more education-related responsibilities, it
obviously wants to withdraw its financial support.
(1610)
The withdrawal of federal support would not result in fewer
constraints, quite the contrary: It would mean less money and
more constraints. The federal government intends to cut
transfers to the provinces and to replace them with more student
loans. However, these transfer payments are used by provinces
to subsidize secondary schools. The provinces will be stuck with
a shortfall of $2.6 billion. They will then be left with two
options: either allocate more money or else leave the
institutions to fend for themselves, which would surely mean
increased tuition fees.
The federal government seems to think that students would
easily absorb such an increase, which is anticipated in the
minister's document, on page 63:
It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put upward pressure on
tuition fees.
In fact, a Treasury Board memo published in the
Toronto Star
today indicates that tuition fees will double if such a measure is
implemented. Cabinet has been informed of that.
Students already incur large debts. Let me give you some
figures. In Canada, 10 per cent of personal bankruptcies affect
students or former students unable to repay their loans. And
what does the minister propose? He wants to put students even
deeper into debt.
6651
In Quebec, a university student spends more than 30 per cent
of his or her annual budget on tuition fees and related costs.
This percentage has doubled since 1990. The situation is the
same everywhere in Canada.
In fact, the problem is somewhat less serious in Quebec
because the provincial government, through a scholarship
program, has helped alleviate the burden of students to ensure
that everyone can get a university education. Quebecers can be
proud of that initiative since, as the Leader of the Opposition
mentioned this morning, until the quiet revolution, in the
sixties, only rich families could afford to put their children
through university.
The discussion paper also refers to a new scheme which
consists in making repayment proportional to one's income.
This concept raises many questions. Since the government
claims to be relying on the support of all partners, it is rather
surprising that, after the working paper was tabled, the first
reaction was that of the Canadian Federation of Students which
immediately opposed the income contingent repayment,
because they worry about the terms of the program. They are all
the more concerned because of pilot projects which were carried
out, particularly in Ontario.
I should mention that Ontario had an experimental project and
that last year, only 75 students participated whereas up to 1,000
could have. Why? Because the terms of this income contingent
repayment plan are often quite restrictive. Students have to say
that they want to be part of that program almost as soon as they
begin their studies. Usually, they are forced into that program.
That approach was tried in other countries, and results have
always been negative. Nevertheless, Canada now wants to use
that approach. We should at least ask a few questions.
(1615)
The president of the Canadian Federation of Students stated:
``Members of the Canadian Federation of Students are
determined to fight government proposals and we are convinced
that the majority of Canadians will support us because they want
to maintain accessible post-secondary education for themselves
and their children''. The federation reacted that way because it
is convinced that this reform will push students deeper into debt
and restrict access to higher education. That was the first
reaction.
The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires
du Québec, François Robello, made the following comment:
``The government will have to publicly assume responsibility
for passing the bill on to students. The way this reform is going,
access to higher education will be under direct fire''. The first
federation is an umbrella organization mainly for associations
outside Quebec, and the second one is affiliated to but
independent from the first one and represents most student
associations in Quebec.
Two federations, two similar conclusions. Both are concerned
about student indebtedness and access to higher education.
The government claims that the reform was initiated for the
very purpose of securing freer access to higher education. There
is already some disagreement on the subject between the
government and representatives of this community. Since
members of student groups experience first hand the effects of
being in debt, they are clearly in a good position to evaluate the
impact of such reforms.
In addition to the students, groups representing universities,
colleges and their presidents in Quebec and across Canada have
expressed their concern that student debt would have the effect
of compelling universities and colleges to raise their tuition
fees, which in turn would reduce enrolment.
The future does not look too good for government members,
when we see both students and universities worried about the
same thing. I think you are in for a tough time during the months
to come.
As the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on October 5
pointed out, the government wants to cut $7.5 billion from
social programs over the next five years. During Question
Period, in response to a question from a member of the Reform
Party, the minister referred to $15 billion. We know that the
budget already provided for cuts totalling $7.5 billion, and now
the minister says $15 billion. This is not a rumour. This is not a
document leaked to the newspapers. This is the minister
speaking.
There is one suggestion that did not really impress me but did
raise some questions. Just think, to deal with student financial
problems, they suggested using their RRSPs, their registered
retirement savings plans. Now how many students who are in
debt have RRSPs when they graduate or when they are at
university? Unless the minister or the paper he tabled means that
parents could use their RRSPs to pay for their children's
education. If that is the case, then we have a problem. First of
all, students who are over 18-which means they are of age-are
adults and want to be able to take care of themselves, and now
the implication is, unless any other explanations are
forthcoming, and we hope they will be, that the parents' RRSPs
could be used. This is disturbing because usually, people have
RRSPs for their retirement and not to pay for the education of
their children.
(1620)
What about consultation? The Standing Committee on Human
Resources, of which I am a member, will conduct wide-ranging
consultations across Canada. Why bother, since the government
has already made its decision on its reforms? The parameters are
there, plus cuts totalling $15 billion. What we need here is a
little motivation, because if spending cuts are to be the order of
the day, people will come to defend their own particular
interests, and you can hardly blame them.
6652
What this paper does not contain, and although what it does
contain is disturbing, what it does not contain is equally
disturbing, and I am referring to a genuine job creation policy,
because we can train students and keep improving their
employability, but in the end they will just be competing for
the same number of jobs.
What do we see now? More and more young people, at least a
third of them, live in insecurity, not just for a year but for long
periods; at least a third or so of young people in Quebec have
trouble finding permanent employment.
What does this reform project do? It calls them frequently
unemployed, it classifies them and we see in the discussion
paper that they are particular targets for cuts. On the contrary,
action should be taken to strengthen these people who are
victims of unemployment. Why attack the victims instead of
unemployment? Why is the human resources development
minister's paper silent on job creation? Why does it not talk
about full employment measures? Some countries have almost
full employment, so why not use them as models?
The paper does not cover everything. We see leaks. We could
talk about them at length, but when a member meets his
constituents, he realizes that cuts are being made to established
organizations that are working to increase employability. Many
organizations in Quebec at least were told that their programs
would be cut by 10 per cent, even though some community
organizations grouped together in the RQUODE umbrella
organization, where I attended a consultation last year, have a
placement rate of 75 per cent. Resources are being cut back for
these established organizations.
While they consult, they cut. Unemployment insurance was
cut last year. Now the organizations are being attacked.
This morning, I heard the minister tell us about an experience
he had when he visited a training centre in New Brunswick. I
would suggest that he not go as far; he could go to Gatineau, a
few kilometres from here, where the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi
Centre found out last week that not only was it getting a 10 per
cent cut but that the job search club was losing its entire
$240,000 annual grant, while young people are told about
so-called measures and intentions. Meanwhile, what the
document does not say is that cuts are being made.
(1625)
Madam Speaker, do you think that I am being partisan? Last
week, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose
name I do not want to mention, said that he was shocked. He
tried to save the program at the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi
Centre in Gatineau from being cut. He had to admit that he was
disappointed because he had been misled, it seems, so he said in
the newspaper. He had been given some hope and the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who lives in Hull, had announced
that the problem would be settled.
But three days later, the way it was settled was by cutting it.
And that is not the only organization to be cut. In at least two
other regions, organizations that prefer to remain anonymous
have already been informed verbally that they will be
eliminated. Meanwhile, the government puts in place its youth
strategy, the Youth Service Corps, and gives $10,000 per young
Canadian, while Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi managed to find
jobs for 375 young people on a budget of $240,000 last year. And
these young people later generated $1 million in tax revenues
for the federal government. Before eliminating organizations,
they could at least have had the decency to await the result of the
consultation process before cutting programs.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, I paid close attention to the hon. member's speech. I am
somewhat concerned about his interpretation of the facts as
outlined very clearly in the green book that is part of the
government's agenda for jobs and growth.
The hon. member and the Leader of the Official Opposition
have tried to depict this exercise by the federal government to
bring about positive change in the lives of many Canadians who
feel trapped by our social security system as a political power
grab, a centralization of power by the federal government.
I draw the member's attention to three pages to illustrate how
wrong the hon. member is in that particular sense. Page 26
indicates very openly and very clearly that we are viewing this
exercise as an excellent way to better improve
federal-provincial relations.
I would like to refer to a couple of points. We admit that the
situation must change. The federal government is committed to
increased collaboration and co-operation with the provinces
and territories in order to simplify access to services, to
minimize duplication and waste, and to clarify the roles and
responsibility consistent with a constitution based on who is
best able to accomplish what is required in the interest of
individual Canadians.
On page 40 of the document we talk about an issue which I
know the hon. member truly cares about. He has to be honest
with the people listening to his speech, because the section
clearly outlines our willingness as a federal government to sit
down-whether it is the province of Quebec or any other
province in the country-with any interested province and
territory to talk about a new three-year labour force
development agreement for which interested provinces and
territories could assume responsibility.
6653
I think the hon. member should pay attention to the
following:
-strategic planning related to various federal employment development
services, including institutional and workplace training, as well as
project-based training;
-managing and the purchase of institutional training;
-planning and implementing a network of ``single window'' offices, that
would assemble under one roof programs and services provided by both levels
of government, including unemployment insurance, training, welfare and
other labour market programs; and
-managing a variety of other federal programs, such as co-operative
education and Canada Employment Centres for Students. The list of programs
could vary, depending on the interest of each province or territory.
(1630)
Another point the hon. member mentioned, although he
sometimes selects the kinds of words he wants to use, was in
reference to the income contingent repayment. He knows as well
as I do because we share a lot of time together at the committee
of human resource development that like Quebec they have the
option to opt out.
The hon. member can get to his feet this afternoon and tell
Quebecers that the federal government wants to sit down and
discuss these matters and that its major objective in this exercise
is to improve the quality of life for people.
The hon. member should also tell the people of Quebec that
we initiated these discussions so we can help all Canadians from
coast to coast toward a better and bright future for themselves
and for future generations.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I will answer this to my hon.
colleague, whom I know well, as he is the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development and
we both sit on the same committee.
I think he already knows the answer. Not mine though. So far,
three provinces have indicated that they find it unacceptable in
many respects. Quebec of course considers it unacceptable. A
statement to that effect was made yesterday. The hon.
parliamentary secretary mentioned the government's
commitment to co-operate. To illustrate the spirit that drives
this government, I would like to quote from the student financial
assistance act, Bill C-28, passed last year. This act provides for
the possibility of opting out. Yes, but ``only if the province
satisfies the Minister-that is the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the new super minister of education for
Canada-by written notice received by the Minister before the
beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the
matter in question, the provincial financial assistance plan has
substantially the same effect as the plan established by this
Act''.
In the mind of the new government, in a spirit of sharing, from
now on, the provinces could apparently be entitled to financial
compensation-in a provincial jurisdiction-provided they
satisfy the minister that their plan has a similar effect, the same
effect-as this is put in the act- as the federal plan. A fine
example of co-operation indeed!
Canada is currently undergoing changes. We are witnessing
the end of a status quo. This reminds me of statements made by a
certain Prime Minister, the former leader of the Liberal Party, to
the effect that the 1980 referendum would indeed bring about
change, but not in the direction that the people of Quebec
expected. Change is happening now and I can see it from here: I
do not doubt the persuasiveness of the present Quebec Minister
of Education, with whom I have worked, but he has to satisfy the
federal minister that his plan is the same as the federal plan.
What a great show of co-operation!
This government tells the provinces: ``We will go along with
you on this, provided you do exactly as we tell you. From now
on, your role will be limited to do as you are told, in a provincial
jurisdiction on top of that''.
Make no mistake, people of Quebec, that is what this
co-operative proposal is about. When they talk about
decentralization in the discussion paper, they are not talking
about giving more powers to the provinces, they are talking
about going directly to the groups, the municipalities, the people
interested in employment. They would bypass the provinces to
reach the groups and organizations concerned. Is that what
decentralization means? In any case, that is not what Quebecers
want. If the government stubbornly insists on spending less but
controlling more, I fear that the reaction will not be the one the
parliamentary secretary is hoping for.
(1635)
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Speaker, if I may,
before making my comments, I would like to salute my wife
Zaïda and a group of friends from Chile in the opposition gallery
and I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Lévis
on his presentation. I want to say that I am totally against this
social security reform proposed by the government.
I think that it shows a total lack of human values, of
compassion and fairness to the most vulnerable in our society.
The Canadian social security system is not the most generous in
the world. Far from it! Many systems in Europe are more
generous. Canada spends $18 billion less than the average
OECD-or industrialized-country. That is why the union
movement was unanimous in opposing and fighting the social
security reforms advocated by the government.
6654
I will also fight these reforms because they hurt the most
vulnerable, the unemployed, the people on welfare. In my
riding of Bourassa, in north-end Montreal, which is a
working-class riding, many immigrants, many Haitians are
suffering from the economic crisis and they are not at all happy
with the reform proposed by this government.
For all these reasons, I will be among those who will fight
tooth and nail against these reforms. I congratulate once again
my colleague, the hon. member for Lévis.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this
very important debate. The revamping of our social security
system is one of the most important issues facing our
government and our people. By revitalizing these programs now
we are investing in our long term economic and social
well-being. If we work together to make positive change we can
renew the country and prepare ourselves for new challenges.
When our government initiated this review last January,
major emphasis was placed on the need for thorough
nation-wide consultations. We realize the importance of
listening to the concerns, the ideas and opinions of as many
Canadians as possible.
Consultation is key to a successful social reform process, and
that is what I want to talk about today. During the election
campaign I heard very clearly from the people of my riding that
they wanted a greater say in the decision making process. I am
sure other hon. members heard the same message. People have
grown cynical of governments who make decisions behind
closed doors without input from the public. Instead people want
their voices to be heard during the development process.
That is what the social security reform is all about. To a large
extent, our social programs have been a defining feature of
Canadian society, programs such as unemployment insurance,
social assistance, post-secondary education and child tax
benefits reflect our strong values of sharing and compassion.
Despite our commitment to social programs, we have over 1.6
million unemployed Canadians, over a million children living in
poverty, thousands of young people who cannot get a start on
their careers, and families who have fallen into poverty traps
and see little hope for the future. Clearly we can do better.
(1640)
In order to improve the system, however, we must consult and
gain the support of members of Parliament, all of the provinces,
various interest groups and most important, the Canadian public
and the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
I believe there is a consensus among Canadians that we must
improve and update the various programs that have helped make
us the great nation that we are today.
An Angus Reid survey conducted earlier this year showed that
fully 85 per cent of Canadians agreed there is a need to reform
our many social programs. I know the people of Annapolis
Valley-Hants will seize the opportunity to participate in this
process in order to help map out the future of our social security
system.
In the past few weeks I have heard from critics who have said
on more than one occasion there is no need for consultations,
that the decisions have already been made and that the
government will go ahead and do what it wants regardless of
public input. I heard it already from across the way.
As I look at this discussion paper and I read the options being
put forward, I feel confident in categorically rejecting these
arguments. The final decisions have not been made. This paper
does not lay out government decisions. Instead this document
outlines certain principles and it presents options for
consideration. It is a catalyst for further debate.
As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to facilitate this
debate in our communities. Anyone who has not done this
consultation and at the end of the day says that they have not
been a part of the process, should be ashamed.
We must bring these options to the people in our own ridings,
talk about how best to reform the system. We must ask what
options are acceptable, what will work in our communities.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants this process has
generated a great deal of interest. In a questionnaire that we
distributed throughout the riding last spring, fully 77 per cent of
respondents felt that Canada's social security system should be a
top priority for reforming.
I have also received many phone calls and letters from people
who have offered their opinions and ideas on what changes
should be made to the network of our social programs. In
response to this tremendous local interest on this issue, my team
set up a committee of community people to help me design a
process to consult the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Through the diligent work of this group, a series of four
consultation forums will be held throughout my riding within
the next three weeks. The objectives of these consultations are
straightforward. First, to stimulate a broad discussion among
constituents about Canada's social policy programs. Second, to
seek the views of the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants on the
future direction of social policy in Canada and the kinds of
programs that will be needed in the future. Last, to submit to the
minister the views of the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants in
order that the concerns that my constituency has put forward are
a part of the decision making process.
As part of this process, the committee has developed a
questionnaire which was distributed to every household in my
constituency. This is the type of consultation process, in my
6655
opinion, which will stimulate worthwhile discussion on our
social security reform.
The dedication that this committee has shown in establishing
a thorough, local consultation process clearly demonstrates the
importance people have placed on the issue. While we still have
a lot of work to do I want to thank the members of my local
committee for their time and great effort. They have truly
demonstrated their desire to work toward positive change.
(1645)
It is this type of involvement which will bring about focused
discussion and worthwhile recommendations as to how to
improve our system. I would encourage all members of
Parliament to follow the lead set by the committed volunteers of
Annapolis Valley-Hants.
I would like to close my remarks today by reiterating the
importance of public discussion and debate on the options that
are before us. The decisions have not been made. I have not
spoken for or against these proposals because the people of my
riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants have not been heard. By
communicating with our constituencies we can ensure that our
programs reflect the concerns and interests of the people across
the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I was surprised when the hon. member for Annapolis
Valley-Hants said in his speech that the government wanted to
do this out in the open, not behind closed doors. In yesterday's
Toronto Star, however, we read, and I quote:
[English]
``The federal government has a secret plan to cut $7.5 billion
from social programs over the next five years''. Further it states:
``The plan was put on paper after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
asked his cabinet colleagues to clarify just how much social
reform would save federal coffers before the end of the Liberal
mandate''.
[Translation]
I was surprised this should happen behind closed doors, but I
also have the impression that as far as members from the
Maritimes were concerned, the doors were closed to them as
well, because that is the only explanation I can find. The hon.
member who represents the Maritimes comes from a region that,
like Eastern Quebec, which I represent, has been hit very hard.
The government is going to create two kinds of unemployed
workers in these regions: people who have been on
unemployment insurance at least three times during the past five
years and those who are employed on a more regular basis.
This is going to be a regular witch hunt. People will be
practically branded as cheaters: ``Why were you unemployed so
many times?'' The government also says their benefits will
depend on the number of times they were unemployed. This
means that two people working for the same employer and doing
the same kind of work and earning the same salary might not
receive the same amount of benefits if they are laid off,
depending on whether or not they were employed regularly.
There will be utter confusion!
I suppose we can assume the only jobs this reform will create
are jobs in the bureaucracy, because the federal government will
do exactly what it has done in the past: increase the number of
bureaucrats instead of introducing specific job creation
measures that will help the regions kick start their economies.
One of these measures, for instance, would be to reduce the
employer's contribution to unemployment insurance premiums.
Instead, we have something that will further complicate the
situation.
I am very surprised to see a member from the Maritimes rise
in the House and say he is prepared to put this before his
constituents, instead of immediately taking a stand against this
kind of proposal.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Madam Speaker, I take note that my hon.
colleague obviously does not have very much faith in people and
people's abilities to make a contribution to the forum that is up
and coming.
I have great support for the people of Atlantic Canada. We
know the issues. We are putting forward ideas for debate to
which I believe the people of Atlantic Canada will contribute
heavily. They will help us make decisions in this Parliament.
(1650)
The hon. member feels that the Canadian people do not have
that kind of ingenuity, that kind of intelligence. I am insulted by
that and I am insulted that he would put that on the people of
Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada and the people
of Annapolis Valley-Hants will contribute to the debate. They
will help us make the decisions that are needed to reform our
system.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Madam Speaker, I was most
interested in this speech and I would like to commend the
member for the process he is going through in his constituency. I
would like to do something like that in my constituency too.
I wonder whether he would contemplate giving us a copy of
the questionnaire he is using. Hopefully between what he has
done and what we would do, we could remove any political bias
in the process and thereby get a good cross-section of what
people across the country would respond to. I really believe in
honest and open discussion. I want to hear the options and I too
trust the people in my constituency.
6656
Mr. Murphy: Madam Speaker, I will forward the member
a document. It was a householder that I sent to every household
in my riding, outlining what we are doing. They then have the
opportunity to get the document from us now.
I will forward it to the member. I am pleased to hear him say
that he trusts the people of Canada and their judgment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Defence Industry
Conversion.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt):
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to commend the
member for Elk Island for his co-operative attitude.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the matter of
social security reform. A discussion paper we have released
gives Canadians a chance to debate the future of these programs,
what is necessary and what is possible with the limited resources
we have available to us.
As the National Anti-Poverty Organization has correctly
noted, the best social security for an individual is a decent job
paying decent wages. But we know with technological change
that decent job has been altered beyond recognition.
[Translation]
And if that were true so far, just think about what the future
has in store for this 18-year old woman, assuming she has just
registered this year at a community college. Can anyone predict
what skills she will need in the labour market in the year 2030?
Of course not!
What we can predict is that her education will not stop on the
day she receives her degree. She will have to continue to learn.
In fact, to achieve financial security, it is not enough to have a
job now; we must also have the skills needed to secure
employment at any time in our lives. That is why we must
upgrade these skills on a continuing basis.
[English]
It seems only yesterday that I was 18 years old myself.
Shockingly, I find myself the mother of 18-year old twin boys.
The future they face is much different from the one that lay
ahead of me at the same age.
When I left school at age 18, the product of rural
Saskatchewan, the choices were clear. A generation or two ago it
was still expected that one would finish school, train for a
specific job and keep that job most of one's working life.
For myself, a young girl from a traditional farm environment I
had a couple of choices; be a nurse, be a teacher. I chose teacher.
I went to the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon which I
am proud to say is a jewel in the crown that is the riding of
Saskatoon-Humboldt.
Because of this fact and the fact that I am a former teacher, I
am particularly delighted today to address the learning chapter
of the green book, chapter 3. No one would deny that learning is
the key to finding and keeping stable jobs. Competition from
other countries, automation, new technologies have changed the
world of work irrevocably.
The new jobs in our economy demand higher and broader
kinds of skills and this is the future that looms before my
18-year old sons. Unlike me they can expect, no they must plan
for, being educated for the likelihood of changing jobs in their
working lives. Their future must be one in which lifelong
learning is possible. Only this way will our young people be able
to enjoy the same financial, emotional and societal benefits of
employment as generations past.
(1655)
Our government, through this discussion paper, faces this
challenge. As members know, federal contributions have helped
build and operate a system of post-secondary education that is
both extensive and accessible.
[Translation]
The Canada Student Loans Program has been improved. We
raised the weekly ceiling by close to 57 per cent for full-time
students. We also raised the maximum for loans to part-time
students from $2,500 to $4,000. We will gradually introduce
special subsidies which will provide an extra $3,000 to single
parents who pursue part-time studies, to handicapped students
and to women registered in Ph. D. programs.
[English]
For the first time we will be offering a national program of
deferred grants that will help high need students who would
otherwise face extremely high debt loads on graduation. There
were many other elements to our improvements to CSLP, but
members will understand the essential principles of improving
and broadening access for students of all kinds.
I would probably not be addressing the Chamber today had it
not been for the assistance of the Canada Student Loans
Program. Without those funds, a university education would
have been beyond my grasp. From the letters I have received
from constituents, and from talking to people in the riding like
Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Dale, I know there are still young people out
there facing the same problem.
Education is not just for the young. As I said in my earlier
remarks, it has to involve people at all stages of their lives if we
are to be successful in the future. In spite of the removal of
certain barriers, one huge obstacle remains. That obstacle is
money or the lack of it.
6657
[Translation]
In the discussion paper, we propose ways to finance
post-secondary education. We discuss the means to make it
more accessible to those who want to develop their skills. We
also recognize that we have been contributing to the financing of
post-secondary education for a long time and that we must
continue to do so.
[English]
The provinces and territories manage the system, but without
federal involvement it would look much different. The federal
government now provides $8 billion a year, or about half the
total spending in this area. The discussion paper recognizes that
the federal government provides core funding for the
post-secondary system through tax points. As members will
recall, the budget earlier this year called for the federal
government to reduce the other part of that funding, cash
transfers.
We have already told the provinces and territories that cash
for post-secondary education will be returned to the 1993-94
level of $2.1 billion in 1996-97. Within 10 to 15 years the
formula in place to calculate the funding will probably end the
portion of the PSE funding paid in cash.
[Translation]
The document raises the question of how to best use that
money. We believe that it is by making post-secondary
education more accessible to students. We realize that the
increase in tuition fees imposed by provinces and territories
have forced students to absorb a larger proportion of the costs of
their education. The changes we made to improve the Canada
Student Loans Program should help students get by, but we can
do more.
[English]
The paper offers an interesting option. End the cash transfers
for institutional support quickly and expand student loan
opportunities instead. It is estimated that a $500 million student
aid program would lever $2 billion in loans every year. The
target for that money could be older students, people who want
to add to their skills and who want to retrain.
A student aid program like this can be truly preventive. It can
offer support to working people who want to stay ahead of the
skill wave.
All this talk of loans brings up the thorny question of
repayment. Sooner or later these loans have to be paid back.
Over the last year I have received letters from students young
and old who are unable to repay their student loans, wondering
what they can do. Sometimes they have graduated and cannot
find work, other times the work they found was so low paying
that they cannot make loan payments. They cannot even make
ends meet.
One option being considered in the discussion paper is the
income contingent repayment plan. This plan which has been
working well in Australia and New Zealand would permit
people to repay their loans on the basis of their income perhaps
through the tax system.
(1700)
Another option in the green book is the concept of using
RRSPs to finance education and training.
What is clear is that the discussion paper takes into account
the need to achieve reform within tight fiscal parameters. Our
objective is to use limited resources in the most effective way to
preserve and expand access to post-secondary education for
many more students.
I congratulate the minister of human resources for having the
courage and the commitment to his ideals to engage Canadians
in the revitalization of our social programs. The easy way would
be to sit back and watch as an outdated social system collapsed
under its own weight as it limped toward the next century. It is
much harder to take the path set by the minister, to recognize
that we have a problem, to identify what those problems are, to
take the time to hear what Canadians have to say about their
needs and about how those needs may be met and how we can
pay for those needs.
In my riding my constituents will be participating in the
revitalization process October 29 and 30. I invite all Canadians
including some of the doubting Thomases in this House to
participate fully in this task, to take advantage of this
opportunity to be part of the rebuilding. Criticism without
offering constructive alternatives gets us nowhere. Why be part
of the problem when it is so much more exciting to be part of the
solution?
I am confident that Canadians hold dear our social programs
and I anticipate that they will join in the task of reweaving our
social safety net so that it is there to cradle Canadians at those
times in our lives when we need its support.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member mentioned some interesting measures in her speech,
including those designed to help women go back to school-she
even related her personal experience.
I would like to make a comment followed by a question. The
discussion paper contains a provision regarding UI, while the
budget speech tabled by the Minister of Finance made mention
of a cut. In fact, there are cuts this year and the government
wants to make additional cuts affecting those who regularly find
themselves without work.
As the hon. member knows, that group includes women. In
times of economic hardship, many women will have part-time
jobs. Their situation is precarious and, unfortunately, they are
often underpaid or paid less than men.
6658
Last year, the human resources development committee
heard testimony by the Anti-Poverty Organization. One woman
who testified had finally succeeded in returning to school and
she told us that, like other students, she would have completed
her studies since she was prepared to incur debts of $32,000
in the process. In the end, since she did not have a job, she could
not get loans.
As an MP, but also as a woman, what does the hon. member
think of the new measure designed to take into account the
salary of a spouse, in the context of women's autonomy?
[English]
Mrs. Sheridan: Madam speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question and his focus on the role women play in the new
working world. I am so pleased that the hon. member has asked
me this question because I think what you must bear in mind
when you launch on a massive enterprise like this into social
reform is what you have in front of you as a discussion paper.
Exactly the kinds of commentaries that you have made here will
be the kinds of things we will be hearing when we go out to our
ridings-personal stories. People are going to be revealing what
the social safety net has meant to them and how it has either
worked or has not worked.
(1705 )
I would respond to the hon. member's story with a story of my
own from Saskatchewan that has to do again with a young
woman. In my other life of continuing to change employment I
managed a clinic. I was faced with a young woman, a single
parent, who came to the clinic first as a patient.
It turned out she was trapped in a social assistance web. She
was unable to get the kind of training she needed because she
had no experience. She had no experience because no one would
hire her. She was suffering from the risk of losing what benefits
she did have for herself. Primarily her focus was on what the loss
would be to her child if she was to give up her social assistance.
What ended up happening was that she started working with
us, training on the job and trying to get herself into a position in
which ultimately she would break free of that welfare trap. I
honestly believe that most people are going to be coming
forward with ideas that will allow Canadians to make the kind of
transition that the hon. member has touched on in his comments.
Whether it is through UI or other programs that will come
under discussion in this social security review, those
opportunities are the ones we have to make for Canadians to
allow them to bridge that gap and to become part of the
workforce. I truly believe that most people look forward to the
prospect of getting up everyday, going to work and providing for
their families.
Mr. Silye: Madam speaker, on a point of order, the Reform
Party under Standing Order 43(2) will be splitting its time now
in 10 minutes and 5 minutes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, we
have heard some good input into this debate today. I thought I
would add some thoughts around four main points. One is why
we need change in our social service delivery; second, talking a
little about the process of change; third, our role as Canadians in
getting change; fourth, where we go from here today.
We need to change our social service delivery. I think there is
a consensus in the House about that. I would like to suggest four
things that we must do when we talk about changing social
service delivery. One is that social programs must be targeted to
those most in need.
We are a rich country. As the Prime Minister is fond of
pointing out, we have been identified as the number one most
desirable country to live in by the peoples in the world.
Interestingly, the Minister for Human Resources Development
says in the plan we are discussing today that fully one-fifth of
Canadian children live in poverty. I find it difficult to believe
that with the billions of dollars we spend on social programs still
one-fifth of our children live in poverty. Surely something has
to change.
Second, the document says that nearly half of Canadians on
welfare are employable. Here we have able bodied people who
are being supported out of the public purse. Surely in the richest
country in the world there has to be change in our social
programs if this is indeed happening.
Another point in this document is that there is a large
percentage of chronic users of unemployment insurance caught
in a cycle of short term employment and unemployment and
dependency again on public programs. In a country like ours we
must be doing something wrong with the billions of dollars we
spend every single year if these facts are correct that the
minister is putting forth to the public.
The family should be recognized as the primary caregiver in
society. Our social programs have strayed from that principle in
large measure. Our social programs have said that it is mother
government and the state that will look after every need and that
there will be a program to help in every circumstance of life.
I believe that Canadians are self-reliant people. Canadians
have a tradition in which families and communities stand
together and help each other through hard times. That is a
tradition. That is the element of our culture that Canadians very
much want to preserve.
6659
(1710)
We want private and public help only as a last resort because
we believe in standing together. We need to get the emphasis
back from a government intruding in our lives and telling us
what to do and taking our money and deciding how it is going to
help us, to helping each other and being self-reliant to a much
larger degree.
Third, our social program delivery should be decentralized to
communities, to the community level, to private sectors, to the
provincial level where the Constitution places it. Instead, we
have strayed to huge federal centralized programs and they are
not working for us. We spend about $160 billion every single
year, a lot of money, and fully half of that is on social program
spending. It is for social programs, transfers to provinces for
social programs. Half of everything we spend is on social
programs.
We need to make those programs work and the big, distant,
bureaucratic, overlapping, inefficient programs simply are
unworkable for Canadians. We want to be free to take care of
ourselves and to look after ourselves at the community and local
levels.
Last, we need change because social programs must be
financially sustainable in the long and the short term.
Some time ago I was speaking to a man who was a third
generation welfare recipient, but this man was different. He had
become a multimillionaire through very hard effort and work on
himself. He taught himself. One thing he did was read over
1,500 biographies of successful men and women in the world
and he studied them and emulated the principles they had
adopted to be successful. I asked this very wealthy and
successful and influential man from another country what he
would advise me to do as someone in public life, as someone in a
leadership position. He gave me his advice in just two words:
``Encourage thrift''.
Our social programs do not encourage thrift. Instead they
encourage dependency. Instead they encourage the expectation
that if we spend our money and we do not save it, do not budget
wisely, somehow somebody else is going to bail us out and that
somebody else is the public purse, the government.
The government does not have any money. The government
just has our money and it does not use it very wisely in many
cases.
The programs we have had have been purchased not only with
our own money but have been purchased on the back of our
future. They have been purchased by mortgaging our children's
future because right now our children owe over half a trillion
dollars to pay for the programs we have given ourselves.
That is not a financially sustainable situation. Government
programs are the problem, not the solution. Because of these
programs and because of the way they have been financed,
one-quarter of everything we spend is on interest and that
interest obligation is rising and our children will have to spend
that every single day.
To get change we must provide leadership and vision for a
new way of doing things. We must move away from the old
expectations. We must move away from the old ways of thinking
and we must confront this situation with openness and honesty,
without pretence, and without trying to savage and distort and
run down people who are simply trying to put the facts out to the
public.
We need leadership that will last in the public interest, not in
political interest, and Canadians should look for that and should
insist on that.
What role do Canadians have in this kind of change? If
Canadians are to have a meaningful role in this debate and if
they are to have meaningful input we owe them something as
leaders. We must define the issues. It is not enough to say: ``Oh,
we are going to talk about this. What do you think?'' We have to
define the questions that need to be answered. That is very
important. If we are going to give reasoned and thoughtful
answers we have to know the questions.
(1715)
Second, there must be fair and balanced information. The cost
and the benefits, both in financial and social terms, must be
clearly laid out to people. If they are going to give informed
opinions they need to have information.
Third, they must have sufficient time. I am very concerned
that we have a document that just came out yesterday and
Canadians are going to have to indicate in three weeks time
whether they wish to speak to this document and have their
submissions in in just about a month. That is with nine
background papers not even released. How are Canadians going
to give informed input without this kind of assistance and
background information?
Last, we have to demonstrate to Canadians that their input is
going to count for something. If it is just a feel good exercise it is
not going to count.
Therefore, I challenge all of us to know what we are doing, to
be informed and to tackle the problem in a substantive way.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I think it would be interesting to find some common
ground with the hon. member who just spoke. Although there are
a number of points on which we differ, I think she may find that
we agree on the following items, for instance. If we consider
what caused the present situation, I think one of the main
reasons is that we have a country where the division of
responsibilities is absolutely mind-boggling.
6660
If we consider unemployment, some people are on welfare,
which is a provincial responsibility, and some people who are
unemployed are dealt with through an unemployment insurance
system. According to the report, 45 per cent of welfare
recipients are people who are unemployed but able to work.
There is no proposal for a joint approach to this problem, for
an integrated and logical strategy to deal with unemployment.
This may be one of the reasons why we are stuck with the
present system, and I think we could agree that the answer is a
very decentralized approach where the whole problem of
unemployment and welfare could be dealt with at a level that is
much closer to the people-at the provincial level, at the very
least, because the economic situation varies widely from region
to region across Canada and a pan-Canadian program does not
have the flexibility to respond to these varying demands.
The second point on which we might agree is the issue of
transparency. When we read in the Toronto Star that:
[English]
Top provincial officials flew into Ottawa to be briefed on the implications of
Axworthy's social reform plan, but they were not given the dollar figures
obtained by the Star and the document makes clear that it is deliberate.
[
Translation]
Obviously, efforts will have to be made, at the level of the
committee responsible for holding hearings across the country
to listen to Quebecers and Canadians, to ensure that the people
appearing before us have all the relevant information at hand
because, as a member of this committee, I had no intention of
being a puppet. I want the real figures to be used. On that too, I
think that we can work together with the hon. member to make
sure things go in the right direction.
One last point that could elicit co-operation is the different
outlook. The reform proposal before us is essentially the same
as the one the Conservatives would have tabled. Somewhere
someone who is not an elected member is controlling the entire
system. That is extremely dangerous for Canada and I do hope
that the hon. member will agree with me on the various points I
just raised.
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I would like to think that
people of good sense will always agree. I would like to think that
we are working together here because we are getting paid by the
people of Canada. I would also like to think that we are working
together for the good of the people of Canada. As far as the
problem of unemployment goes it is important to note that when
we take large amounts of money out of the pockets of business
people, investors and entrepreneurs to fund government
activities and government programs we are diminishing their
ability to create real long term sustainable economic activity
which creates real long term jobs.
(1720)
It is not governments that create jobs. It is us with our money
and our hard work.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, it is
beginning to look as though Pierre Trudeau's vision of a
socialist Canada has come true. By making the federal
government this country's largest employer he guaranteed most
people would be reliant on government for their livelihood.
By instituting new laws to create a just society we are now
faced with criminals having more rights than their victims. By
systematically tearing down the traditions and freedoms of the
old Canada he has been able to convince his political apostles
that the old ways were corrupt and his way correct. By
destroying the country that our forefathers built and fought for
he made way for the country that it has become, chasing itself in
circles like a confused dog while the world watches in
amazement. Even the finance minister said he wants to square
the circle. He just does not know where to start.
Those are not the words of a political speech writer, spin
doctor or myself but of Mr. Don Nich, a Calgarian and a
taxpayer, who like so many Canadians is tired of status quo
federalism and passive and ineffective Liberal policies.
As the debt clock ticks its way into the second half of $1
trillion we are increasingly aware of the fact that the old ways of
doing things simply do not work any more. They have in fact led
to what many Canadian economists describe as a crisis situation
threatening the basic financial security of our country now and
for many generations to come.
How have we come to be in such a financial mess? Through
years and years of allowing federal governments to ignore the
problem, by continuing to live on ever increasing levels of
borrowed money. More than 25 years of borrowing started with
the Liberal government in 1968 and heaven help us continues
with a Liberal government today.
By spending at levels we cannot afford and thrusting the
resulting burden on to the people of this country through
taxation Ottawa has created a two headed monster that threatens
the very core of our country. One head of this monster is
increased program spending; the other head is the crushing
complex system of taxation.
During the last election Canadian taxpayers made it clear that
they want politicians with the guts and the vision to lead the way
with changes that will benefit them and their children no matter
how difficult those changes may be. They can see the two headed
monster and want it stopped before it devours their future.
6661
What has the government done to answer this call? The
answer is a discussion paper. Today alone the Liberals will
spend $113 million more than they bring in. Today alone the
Liberals will continue to take $6 from the taxpayer for every
$1 that their members pay toward their gold plated MP pension
plan for life which socially conscious Reform MPs have sworn
to reject. Today alone the Liberals will let the debt clock
continue to run at nearly $1,500 per second. Finally, today the
Liberals will spend yet another day talking about social reform
rather than introducing legislation that they promised all
Canadians during the election in their red book. They have
deferred the plan and will avoid the problem for another year.
I predict that any legislation that this government does
introduce whenever it introduces it will cost the Canadian
taxpayer more than the current $38.7 billion it is attempting to
review.
Mr. Robichaud: Do you want to bet?
Mr. Silye: Yes, I will side bet you any time, any amount you
want.
We believe that like a house Canada is currently mortgaged to
the tune of $531 billion. Every year the government borrows
about $44 billion more to pay for things we cannot afford. The
interest payments on this mortgage alone eat up one-third of our
tax dollars and have led to increases in the tax burdens on
Canadians and less money for social programs and left their
economic fate in the hands of foreign creditors.
The time has come to start getting the books in order today.
Pay down this mortgage and live in a home that Canadians can
afford and enjoy.
Through you, Madam Speaker, to the members of the Liberal
Party, I would like to take a moment to provide the building plan
for that home. Start by laying out a foundation of reasonable
spending, setting priorities on what is truly important. On top of
this build the four strong walls of fair taxation, direct
democracy, institutional reform and equal rights. Finally,
protect all those inside the house with a roof of efficient and
effective social programs and stop wasting money on needless
frills like gold plated pensions, parliamentary travel, better
known as MP tourism, and subsidies for business and special
interest groups. I wonder what the Prime Minister and his group
of premiers and his whole hoard of bureaucrats going to China
will bring back in terms of dollars and cents on a business deal
for this country.
(1725)
The benefits of us owning a mortgage free home includes
lower taxes, an improved economic climate and secure social
programs. If the Liberal contractors cannot budget and build
such a home, the Reform Party will.
We believe it is unfair to finance current programs at the
expense of future generations, as mentioned by my colleague
from Calgary North. The time has come for Canada's social
programs to be financially self-sustainable.
We should democratize UI by having it administered by the
employers and employees who finance it. Tighten the rules for
UI qualifications so that the program reflects its original
purpose as a temporary safety net for those who lose their jobs.
Provide incentives to help people become less dependent on
government. If UI and welfare equal minimum wage, why
should people work?
Also the Reform party believes that our social program should
be designed to eliminate all duplication of administration
between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Not
enough money is getting to the truly needy. I witnessed that
personally on the campaign trail during the last election. I met
individuals who had legitimate cases. Seniors who had a $55 or
$75 cheque said: ``This has to last me for a month''. Yet they
were refused or unable to obtain assistance because of the red
tape while seasonal workers across Canada who earn $55,000 or
more are using it to pad their incomes. This must stop.
Social programs should be based on family or household
income and administered through the tax system. Old age
security, for example, is not even mentioned. It costs $20 billion
per year and is not funded out of anybody's premiums. It is given
to everyone who turns 65 regardless of whether they need it or
not. I have not paid one cent toward that program. I will become
65 in 15 years and I will get an automatic $365 per month. I do
not know if I deserve that if I make more than $54,000 a year.
Social programs should be fair to all regions of the country
and treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live.
The Canada assistance plan for example costs $8.2 billion per
year and matches provincial spending on welfare for the have
not provinces.
What I am going to say in the following sounds tough, but we
have to deal with the reality that if you cannot make your region
economically viable in any way, shape or form, then taxpayers
should not be asked to pay the bill. The money just is not there.
Before we get to that extreme we propose that the federal
government decentralize the CAP by passing equivalent tax
room to the provinces and let those closer to the provinces
decide how the money should be spent. In earlier times people
dealing with particular issues in a region were the people who
knew the local conditions best. They knew which of their
neighbours needed help most. Issues could be dealt with quickly
and responsibly and people were directly familiar with their own
budget constraints.
6662
Perhaps it is time to push government programs and services
closer to the people by placing them under the jurisdiction of
the lowest level of government possible. Set basic federal
standards, make it portable, make it accessible and give the
provinces more flexibility in managing their own affairs.
Maybe then we will see more grassroots or local solutions with
effective results for the have not provinces.
A social dilemma has been created by the misapplication by
this government and the Conservative government of the
Keynesian economic theory. In a recession it is fine to borrow to
stimulate the economy. In good times you have to pay back what
you have borrowed. These past two governments have failed to
do that. It is past time for governments to recognize the second
half of that theory and start paying down the debt.
Not one member across the floor or in the separatists ranks
has like us refused to take the MP pension. Nowhere in the report
of the Minister of Human Resources does it say that MPs will
lead by example and make the sacrifices that are being asked of
all other Canadians. Not one minister has had the courage to go
into his department and tell non performing employees: ``You
are fired'' to old school bureaucrats who play the political game.
But those bureaucrats have forgotten who they work for, the
taxpayers.
If the government really wants to help Canadians help
themselves then it should leave more money in the hands of the
people who earn it. Taxpayers know how to spend and invest
their money much better than the government. Do not tax people
and redistribute the money. Leave it at the source. If people are
allowed to keep the money they earn they would not need social
programs from the government.
A 10 per cent cut for all families earning under $60,000 would
leave more money for food, shelter and clothing and that should
be the very objective of social programs.
If the government and the finance minister had the political
will and the business acumen to lower overall spending, they
could easily lower taxes. The handling costs of sending money
to Ottawa for bureaucrats to redistribute back to the people as
they see fit basically takes 30 to 35 per cent of the moneys out of
the programs. This is an enormous impact on the efficiency of
the programs.
Objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not
partisan politics as is being played out by the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. It being 5.30 p.m. I am obliged to proceed to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
6662
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West) moved that Bill
C-245, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and
the Auditor General Act (review of budget speech), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my Bill C-245
and why I did propose it. I guess it would be no secret to say that
I proposed it because of a great lack of confidence in the ability
of this government and indeed the Conservative government
before it to accurately project revenues.
This bill asks the Auditor General to order one or more people
to review the budget speech and then report to the House on the
reasonableness of the estimated revenues used in the
preparation of that speech. That report would be by another
party and would be submitted to the Speaker on or before May
31.
The reason that is necessary is that we do need another
independent body assessing the numbers the government is
giving us. I will show today why this and other governments
have been projecting revenues like this and have been spending
that much and their revenues are downloaded and they end up
with deficits.
As I started this speech, this country's debt clock was at
$532,343,108,949.98. That just sort of rolls off us Reformers
now. However I think the people listening and watching should
really understand that this money will be on the backs of our
children and our children's children. The overindulgence of the
last 20 years must really be noted and it must be accepted that it
has to stop. The debate we have already heard today on the social
programs from the Reform Party's point of view should be well
taken, well accepted, and the rhetoric we are getting from the
Liberal Party should be suspect at the very least.
How did we ever get into this mess? Besides overspending
and overindulging and overloading the taxpayer, government
manipulation of the budget numbers is one of the primary
problems. How can government overspend, one asks. It is quite
easy when you bring forward to the public estimated revenues of
a certain amount of money.
It is like a family whose income is $56,000 a year. They turn
around and say: ``We know we have $56,000 but let us just say it
is going to be $86,000 this year and let us spend $86,000''. At
the end of the year they end up owing $30,000 to the bank. Next
year they do the same thing and the following year. Pretty soon
that family owes $90,000 or $100,000 and what happens? The
bank comes into play and says: ``Wait, you cannot pay your
bills''. Then the tragedy of personal bankruptcy takes place.
6663
With government however the bank does not come into play,
the taxpayer does. It is most notable in recent years looking at
the rising tax figures how the taxpayer is paying for this burden
of assessment of higher valued revenues and spending to that
limit.
(1735)
In 1984 Canadians thought they got rid of the Liberals. They
brought in debt and deficits that were concerning people, so we
brought in the Conservatives. We thought they were talking
about restraint, and talk about sitting at the trough. We put up
with these folks for four years.
In 1988 we were at this terrible decision making point. We
could not go back to the Liberals because they blow money like
yesterday's business. We were not very comfortable with the
Conservatives, but maybe they just needed another four years.
So we brought in the Conservatives again. Well, it was trough
city after that.
The Conservatives knew it. They figured that as they were
probably going to go out anyway, just before the 1992 election
they would raise the revenues and spend money. Then if the
Liberals got in they would be stuck with it because the
Conservatives had spent money based on erroneous, highly
projected revenues. If the Liberals did get in they would wonder
what had happened.
This has been going on for decades. I have to ask why is it we
do not elect the government we want. What we really do is throw
out the government we do not want. That is why today there are
52 Reformers sitting in this House. I can assure you at the next
election we are going to throw out a government we do not want.
The people are finally going to have an opportunity to elect the
government they do want, notwithstanding all this rhetoric we
hear here. We are going to stick with it and keep talking about
deficit reduction and we mean it. It is not rhetoric.
Canadians did elect the Liberals as the government thinking
they would have a great opportunity to see this tough budget in
1993. Several of us, me included, went into a lockup. We were
looking for the savings, the reductions, and all of the changes
that would come. The Liberals were going to help the country.
What we saw was some increased revenues and they were going
to spend the same amount of money. This is the same old story
we have been getting. Meanwhile the debt climbs and climbs.
Under the auspices of increased revenues we get more spending.
We hear the talk today about social programs. For one whole
year we have been studying social programs from this side of the
House and yesterday, we received a discussion document, not an
action document, a discussion document. That is kind of sick
when you think about it. We have had a year to take some action.
We are overspending by $40 billion a year and we get a
discussion document. What do the people at home think of this
House that is supposed to provide leadership, this House that is
supposed to take action? The reports already coming into my
office ask why some action could not be taken.
We did hear from the press, not from the government, that
there is possibly $7.5 billion in savings over five years. That is a
mega whopping $1.5 billion a year. We overspend by $40 billion
a year so $1.5 billion does not even make a dent, folks. This
comes from an accountant. I think I can even add that much.
I can say this. The government is trying to bail out a sinking
ship with a thimble. It does not work that way and even buckets
will not help now. We need a sump pump to drain this system.
Yes it will hurt a little bit, but have the courage. We will show
this government how to have some courage. We just have to take
it on the chin a little bit, that is all.
(1740 )
If the Liberals really meet their budget plan we are blessed in
this country with a deficit of about $26 billion a year. This is the
plan to balance the books, $26 billion a year. Over four years we
are running over another $100 billion in debt. That is the thimble
we are dealing with. It is not sound and it is not reasonable, but it
is rhetoric.
If the Liberals do not cut they have to play with the revenues.
That is what they are going to do and that is why my bill kicks in
place. We want an independent third party to look at these
revenues. We want another assessment of these numbers.
When they are looking at revenues do not discount the cash
cow of RRSPs. Although their budget numbers will vary widely
on how much revenue they can get from that, you may be sure
there is a cash cow there and they do have a focus on those
savings. In fact our leader and others in our party have asked in
the House of Commons several times in Question Period: ``What
are you doing with RRSPs?'' The answer is always: ``Well, we
can't say right now''. The fact is they are going to dip into it.
Let me tell the House what some people think about that. I
hope this government does not think that people are not
concerned about it already. This is an unsolicited letter to me
from a chartered accountant. Her name is Ruth Gillies. She
wrote:
This letter is to express my strong concern over recent sabre rattling by
Revenue Canada to tax retirement savings. I feel that threatening those people
who are attempting to deal responsibly with their future needs, rather than
relying on the system to provide help as and when needed, provides a strong
disincentive for people to act responsibly.
Disincentive to act responsibly. We are hearing that not just
about RRSPs but also about the social system changes we are
looking at.
6664
It also occurs to me that threatening to tax retirement savings, which is obviously
offensive, might be viewed as an effective psychological weapon so the Canadian
populace will be thrilled when the proposed charge of first degree murder is
subsequently reduced to manslaughter.
I understand the government's need to deal with the deficit issue.
I think Ruth probably understands that need a little more than
this government; she is a CA. She goes on to say:
I feel more like a victim or prey rather than the cause of the problem. I feel more
like I am being done to rather than being done for.
Do you understand what she is saying here?
In my opinion we need responsibility accounting and good value for our
money that government spends.
Now understand this:
A deficit arises when spending exceeds revenue.
I have to say that again. Deficit arises when spending exceeds
revenue. This is the new axiom for the Liberal Party.
I do not feel that cost control and expenditure reduction measures have been
fully explored or exhausted by our fiscal managers.
We and millions of other people in this country do not feel that
way either. The letter goes on to say:
I already feel I am paying my fair share and sometimes, to be honest, a little
more than my fair share. I am very disturbed by being constantly asked to pay
more. Before I make any more payments I want to know where, why, when and
how the debt arose for which I am presumed to be liable.
Is that common sense or what? She is a chartered accountant.
It is not somebody with no knowledge of the finances of this
country. In the event that this government believes I drew this
letter up from Ruth Gillies, I just received another one today that
puts it even more basically. I do not think Scott Leaf is an
accountant but here is what he has to say:
I am writing you to demand that you oppose any tax grab on money within
registered retirement savings plans.
I am 28 years old and have been putting away the maximum RRSP
contribution that I am allowed for 3 years. I am not wealthy. I make
approximately $30,000 a year.
My wife and I survive on one income at present, while I support her in
university. We forgo trips, and most of the things that others our age do not, in
order to plan for our future. I would love to go on a cruise or buy a house but we
have followed all the advice from both government and the private sector and
have saved.
If the government taxes our money within our RRSP it is a slap in the face to
us. I am thoroughly disgusted with even the thought of taxing money within
RRSPs. I already know that I cannot count on a government pension in the
future or even a company pension. Therefore I demand that you condemn any
change that will start the process where people will not be able to count on their
own retirement savings either.
(1745)
Why am I interested in this revenue part? The Reform Party
has been talking cut, cut, cut expenditure, wise decision
making, good sound fiscal management in expenditures. We
have looked at the revenues, but we need that independent third
party to look at it because we cannot trust what is coming from
the crew over there.
Ruth Gillies had actually talked about some stupid spending. I
was talking to a fellow today and he says: ``Talk about stupid
spending. They spent $661,463 to solicit public comment and
preach restraint at a series of conferences leading up to last
February's budget''. Folks, I do not think they got $661,000
worth because they did not listen. Of that total, $37,800 was
spent on travel expenses. There was $10,850 spent for a
consultant to recruit members of the public to attend meetings.
This is very wise spending on behalf of the Liberals because
they cannot get people to attend meetings. There was of course
$6,050 for a writer to craft four speeches delivered by the
finance minister. I suppose he does not have enough staff to do
that. We have to forgive him for that.
I want to mention excuses made about revenues. In 1984 the
Liberal government brought in a budget, Marc Lalonde's
budget. Among the comments made in the revenue portion of it
was: ``It is planned for stable inflation. We have a job creation
program''. That was 1984. Ten years later the Liberals are still
planning for job creation programs. They had a medium term
strategy for deficit reduction. I guess that one did not work
either.
They had a planned unemployment decline from 11.9 per cent
to 7.7 per cent. This is in justification of increasing revenues so
they could spend more money. None of these things came true.
Growth in personal income and revenues were expected to grow
more rapidly than GNP from 15 per cent in 1983-84 to 15.9 per
cent.
What happened? In 1985 Michael Wilson said: ``We missed
the target somewhere along the line. We don't know what
happened but there was a sharp slowdown in growth of
budgetary revenues in 1983-84'', but it was due to the 1981-82
recession. I have to ask: Why did Mr. Lalonde's budget not pick
that idea up? It was two years before that.
The fact is that the Liberals already knew it was going to
affect revenues but they kept it high so they could spend more
money. That kind of forecasting in the circles I have worked in
as a certified management accountant is just unbelievable. That
kind of forecasting is actually unacceptable.
At the very least the government should take its revenue
projections and discount them. I would suggest that the
government should take a very hard and direct look at this bill. It
does not have the wisdom to make the decisions. They need a
second opinion.
6665
(1750 )
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address the House today on
the issues raised by Bill C-245. I was pleased that the member
for Fraser Valley West finally got around to talking about the bill
in his speech toward the end.
I want to congratulate him because it is an important initiative
to take a look at the budget and the budget process. As
parliamentarians we absolutely want to do the best job we can in
the formulation of the budget, to understand its contents and to
know how we can logically discuss it, debate it and liaise with
our constituents about its contents.
The issue of the the budget speech process and the degree and
nature of consultation which goes into its preparation has been
the subject of debate for many years in the House. Contrary to
what my hon. friend across the way thinks, I believe the process
that was used last year was better than the year before. It was
more open and it allowed more Canadians to become involved.
The process that will be used in 1994-95 is going to be even
more open. The all-member finance committee will be
undertaking a series of consultations with the public in order to
have their input before the budget is formulated and not after.
It surprises me when we have these debates and I listen to the
Reform members when it comes to the matter of consultation. It
does not seem to matter what we are discussing, whether it is the
budget process, the social policy review, or whatever, I hear the
same message: Do not consult, just do. Do not listen to the
Canadian people. Just go out and do it. Ignore our constituents.
Just go out and do it.
This is the party that about a year ago travelled through the
country saying: ``Our primary objective is to consult, to listen to
our constituents''. Yet every time the government suggests a
way to consult it was opposed. It is very strange.
Basically this bill calls for two major ideas. The first one has
to do with setting a specific date for the budget to be brought
down. I will let others discuss that issue if they wish.
The more important part, and the one that the member did
finally get around to talking about, is the suggestion that we
have a third party assessment of the budget, that the Auditor
General have a mandated role in the budget. I want to talk a little
about that, about his concept that the Auditor General ought to
be taking a look at the reasonableness of things. I have some
concerns about that.
Mr. Abbott: I would not doubt it.
An hon. member: We know why.
Mr. Mitchell: I will tell you why. There is a fundamental
misreading on the other side about what our job is and about
what politics is. Members here were not elected to come to the
House so they could have a third party tell them what is right or
wrong. They were elected to come to the House to use their best
judgment, for them to analyse what is going on, for them to
bother to read the budget and for them to offer their political
opinion and their best judgment.
To abdicate that responsibility to a third party is
inappropriate. You are a member of Parliament. I am a member
of Parliament. It is our responsibility and to shirk it to a third
party is inappropriate.
To go beyond that I have some basic concerns about giving the
responsibility to the Auditor General. I have great respect for
that office. I know members opposite have great respect for that
office. They have often mentioned it. I would be very concerned
if we undertook this bill which could very well result in the
Auditor General being engulfed in partisan politics, being
engulfed in the give and take of the debate, because this is a
political issue.
(1755 )
If the government's estimates of expenditures or revenues are
wrong, then the government will pay a political price. It is the
job of the opposition to make the government pay for it, if it is
appropriate.
The opposition was not able to do that when the last budget
was tabled because by and large the Canadian people accepted it
as sound. That is the difficulty. You were not able to make your
case and now you are looking for a third party to make it for you.
That is not appropriate. The Auditor General's office is an
important one. It undertakes a number of important tasks.
Recently a private member's bill passed, which I was quite
happy to see, that gives the Auditor General the opportunity to
report on this House on more than an annual basis. That is an
important step. It gives the Auditor General the opportunity to
come to the House and comment on what the government of the
day is doing.
Beyond that, there are some structural difficulties with asking
the Auditor General to provide comments and assurances on
financial forecasts or projections. Guidelines have been
established in the accounting industry, which I much admire and
in my previous life had an opportunity to work with quite
closely.
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants states very
clearly that a very cautious approach ought to be taken when
passing judgment on estimates. In fact, it cautions its members
to be very careful when offering that kind of opinion, I think
with good reason. The institute recommends that the reporting
be limited to stating that the assumptions and projection used
are suitably supported or consistent with the organization's
plans and that the forecasts presented fairly reflect the
assumptions.
6666
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants further
calls for the auditor to provide a disclaimer, noting that the
projections could be materially wrong if there are changes to
assumptions and projections. Although members may not want
to believe it, the world goes on every day and the assumptions
that are made for a budget do in fact change. Indeed they
change. The world changes every year. I know the Reform party
has a hard time grappling with the fact that change is ongoing
and that we have to learn how to deal with it.
There is another concern. What happens if the Auditor
General is wrong? Is the Reform Party going to be standing in
their places railing against the Auditor General as being the
cause of our deficit? To suggest that, because projections are
wrong and is the cause of our deficit is ludicrous. With this bill
we would be suggesting that if the Auditor General makes an
assessment and that office is wrong, that the Auditor General
would be responsible for the deficit. I cannot buy that.
In addition, I have some difficulty with the proposed process
in the sense that the Auditor General's report will come out three
months later. I do not think the House is going to wait for three
months before it starts to debate the merits of the budget. There
is a similar bill in Nova Scotia. In the Nova Scotia experience
the Auditor General's comments come with the budget. There
might be some value to doing that and looking at it that way.
However, I would suggest we might want to wait until we see
what the Nova Scotia experience is, take the best from it and
incorporate it into this House, leaving aside those things that do
not work well.
(1800)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, I too
welcome this opportunity to rise in this House to speak to Bill
C-245. Seeing that my colleague from the Reform Party chose
to use his speaking time to talk about this, that and the other, the
budget, the deficit, in fact, anything but his bill, I would like to
briefly go over the content of this bill. I think it is important for
all the hon. members of this House to understand what it is
about.
First of all, the existing Auditor General Act states the
mandate and lists almost all the duties of the Auditor General.
He is the auditor of the accounts of Canada, including those
relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As such, he makes
inquiries and examinations and then reports to the House of
Commons as required by the act. He is responsible for auditing
the expenditures made by the departments and Crown agencies.
He must submit an annual report, naturally, on or before
December 31 of each year. In addition, he was recently given the
mandate of submitting more than one report. The Bloc
Quebecois had asked for this and supported the proposal.
Obviously, the mandate of the Auditor General is
commendable. His role consists mainly in checking how public
funds are used and I would say that, so far, this neutral authority
has carried out his duty.
You will understand that the performance of such duties
requires a great deal of precision and accuracy. I realize that
everyone is probably familiar with the act and the duties of the
Auditor General, but it is useful nonetheless to refresh the
memories of some hon. members.
The bill before us is intended to add to the already heavy
workload of the Auditor General. In fact, clause 2 of the bill
would extend the Auditor General's duties so that he would also
become, listen to this, the auditor of the revenue estimates used
in preparing the budget speech, for which the Minister of
Finance is responsible.
It makes no sense. The Auditor General's role is to audit the
public accounts. The member wants to add to this the auditing of
the government's future revenues. The Auditor would thus be
asked to forecast government revenues, as well as review all its
spending. If that were so, the Auditor General would examine
revenue projections. He would have to go to the very root of the
assumptions made by the government.
The present mandate of analysing the expenditures of
departments and agencies is not at all consistent with an
additional mandate of estimating revenue.
Experience has shown us that the finance minister's estimates
are often unrealistic. The present Minister of Finance is no
exception. We cannot ask the Auditor General to assume
responsibility for the analyses made by the Department of
Finance. Overestimating revenues as a way of reducing the
deficit is unacceptable. That is why the Minister of Finance
must be satisfied with the quality of the estimates made by his
department. The government cannot evade its duties and ask the
Auditor General to do the job instead. This is the work of elected
officials.
I would like to understand why the member for Fraser Valley
West thinks that this task should be performed by the Auditor
General, who we must say does not have the resources that the
Department of Finance has to carry it out.
(1805)
This would lead to duplication and overlap and of course
additional expense. That is not how one reduces the deficit. Of
course, the member for Fraser Valley West might mention clause
3, which says that after the Auditor General reviews the budget,
he will report on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues
used in preparing the budget speech.
6667
It would not be easy for the Auditor General to determine
what a reasonable revenue estimate is. As the Auditor General
himself has said, it is hard to know whether the estimates are
reasonable or not. Political considerations enter into it, but the
Auditor General is supposed to be neutral.
Even if my colleagues in the Liberal Party think that their
estimates are reasonable, I am sure that they will again have a
strong tendency to overestimate revenues, but they will still
have to answer for it to Parliament.
So, again, the Minister of Finance is responsible for the
accuracy of the data presented in the budget. I stress that it is up
to the Official Opposition, the other opposition parties and
financial analysts to criticize the budget, especially its revenue
projections.
There are several flaws in the analysis which led to this bill. It
would make the Minister of Finance no longer responsible for
the validity of his revenue estimates. The critical role of
financial analysts and of the Official Opposition would be
completely removed.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will not support this
bill.
In closing, we will just say that everyone should do his own
job and we will all be better off.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-245.
First, I want to congratulate the Bloc member. It is the first
time this week-and I am not trying to be nasty-that a Bloc
member raises an issue in an honest, fair and concise manner. I
really appreciate that.
I also thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his
initiative. However, I would have liked to hear him discuss the
bill itself. He might have been able to convince me that it has
many positive aspects but, instead, he chose to make all kinds of
political comments. Unfortunately, the hon. member failed to
convince me. He could have done better, because I do think that
the bill has some good points.
The hon. member knows that the whole issue of budget
preparation, including the consultation process, is a permanent
process because the budget is an extremely important exercise.
Who prepares the budget? How is this exercise conducted? How
extensive is the consultation process? Who is consulted? When?
What do we do with the information gathered? All these are very
important issues.
As I understand it, this bill includes two major points. The
first one is the date the budget is tabled. In this case, there is no
clear indication that what the hon. member proposes is better
than the existing procedure. However, I want to discuss the
second point more in detail.
[English]
The Auditor General report on the reasonableness of the
estimated revenues in the preparation of the budget speech.
(1810 )
The Auditor General would be required to report his findings
to the Speaker of the House on or before May 31 in the year to
which the report relates.
The Auditor General as we all know has a particularly
important job, one that must be above and beyond and not at all
associated with politics. The Auditor General has probably as
much credibility as some of the institutions that have most in our
society today. We must as Canadians, as a society, as a
Parliament be absolutely certain of the independence and the
credibility of the Auditor General in this institution.
It seems to me that any action whatsoever that might be
undertaken by Parliament that might draw the Auditor General
into the political fray would destroy that credibility and would
damage the independence of the institution, one that I have
indicated and I think all colleagues would agree is of great, great
importance.
Let us look closely at this provision of the bill. The bill says:
``to comment on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues''.
It seems to me that this could bring the Auditor General
perilously close to getting into policy matters, hence into
political matters. I worry about that.
Perhaps my colleague does not worry about it. He seems to be
smiling but I think that most Canadians would agree with my
perspective. That is that the Auditor General must not be put
into a position where the credibility and the independence of
that institution are questioned. That is the issue here.
My colleague will know, he was indicating that he had had
some experience in this field, that normally accountants or
people related to that profession will make commentary and
historical transactions, financial statements where there are
facts to be dealt with. That is their primary focus.
When it comes to projected revenues, yes, they have been
involved but they are always extremely cautious. Why is that? It
is because they are made based on a number of assumptions.
They are based on a number of understandings that people have
of the relationships that exist.
It is not unusual for someone to use different assumptions or
to do a different analysis based on certain assumptions. My
colleague knows that fully. In fact, I am starting to suspect-I
did not suspect that before I started-that what my colleague
really wants to do here is stir the pot to get a little bit of political
hay.
6668
We could be setting up the Auditor General. We could be
setting up that institution. We could be setting him up in order
for him to try to use-
Mr. Silye: We want government to start to live within its
means and start today. We are not responsible for collecting
taxes for 44,000 people.
Mr. Duhamel: The member will get a chance to speak if he
likes later. I would appreciate it if he would be polite. When I
heckle, at least I do it quickly.
As I was indicating, I am absolutely convinced my colleague
really wants to try to use another institution so that he can try to
discredit the government. He has no intention of working with
government since he has come here. Why should he start now?
My colleague may be interested in the following:
[Translation]
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants insists on
being very cautious when making comments on revenue and
expenditures forecasts. The institute even recommends that the
auditors add a cautionary note to indicate that forecasts could be
totally erroneous if the basic assumptions and projections were
to change. The fact is that budget-related information is based
on a wide range of economic projections.
[English]
We know that to be true. One of the questions that I would like
to ask is this. Did my colleague ask the Auditor General whether
or not he would accept this, whether or not this was a good idea.
My colleague says that he did. Could my colleague please share
with us in this House whatever communications he has received
from the Auditor General indicating that this would be a good
idea?
My colleague will recognize, and he may read and recall,
when I say that we have a colleague who proposed change to the
Auditor General's responsibilities. Those were passed by this
Parliament. In fact in the debate a letter was brought forward by
the Auditor General saying that it was a good idea.
(1815)
Where is the letter? Where is the document? Has it been
tabled in the House, the letter saying that it would be a good
idea? If it has, I would like to see it.
[Translation]
Hon. members are so excited by my speech that they cannot
sit still. This is extraordinary. It is the first time I get this kind of
attention and it makes me very proud.
[English]
My colleague may know that they have attempted a similar
experience in Nova Scotia. They reported in April. I wonder if
my colleague took the time to call Nova Scotia to find out what
kinds of difficulties they had.
Was it all positive? Were there negatives? What were the
positives? What were the negatives? Perhaps he would like to
write me a note to tell me with whom he spoke and what points
were made.
There is another really quite interesting point, as I understand
it. I stand to be corrected; I love to be corrected by Reformers.
They never make any mistakes so they will correct me in this
instance, I am sure, if I stray from the truth. I am told it would
take three months before the Auditor General would probably
bring forth his report. A lot of things change in three months.
Perhaps the Reform Party does not change in three months, but
Canada's economic situation and the world's economic situation
change in three months and what is done today may not be as
precise three months from now.
I suggest we should talk to Nova Scotia. We should look at
that experience. Subsequent to analysing what benefits it might
bring, perhaps we should look at this matter again.
[Translation]
I am about to conclude. I would like to ask a few questions and
I will be very open-minded. Indeed, if the hon. member can
provide answers to all my questions, I will reconsider my point
of view. I love to ask questions.
Can the hon. member, who is a member of the Reform Party, a
party that loves to brag about savings, tell us what resources
would be required for the Auditor General to implement such a
measure? Did he give us a figure? Did he talk to the Auditor
General? Did he ask the Auditor General to give him a report
stating whether or not he agreed with the proposal?
The hon. member knows full well that the Auditor General has
a great deal of independence. He also has a lot of credibility,
precisely because he is dealing at arm's length with the
government. And he can make additional reports because
Parliament recently amended the law. What I am saying is that
there are certain risks involved although the premise is sound. It
is not a bad question. It is even a very good question, I admit, but
there are still certain risks involved. He did not do all the
research he should have done. I would recommend to him that he
do more research.
For example, what would it cost? Can we wait to see the
results of the Nova Scotia experiment? After he has answered all
my questions, I will review my position but, until he does so, I
say no to this bill.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I am
rising today to address Bill C-245, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act and the Auditor General Act, and in
particular to give the Auditor General a mandate to review the
reasonableness of estimates in the budget speech.
6669
Whenever I rise to address seriously a question before the
Chamber I always find I begin in a somewhat depressed state
after listening to some of the earlier histrionics. Some of the
positions that have been expressed so far today strike me as
odd.
For example, the Bloc Quebecois would be concerned about
giving the Auditor General the power to limit the independence
and effectiveness of elected members of Parliament. Yet the
Bloc Quebecois would not be concerned about the plans of the
Government of Quebec to undertake action which would destroy
Parliament and destroy the country. It seems to me to be a rather
misplaced sense of concern.
Likewise some of the Liberal MPs who have spoken are
similarly concerned about the control of the Auditor General.
He may be controlling some of the decisions being undertaken
on the financial end. They would seem to be unconcerned about
the fact that our financial policies, if followed, will ultimately
lead to the International Monetary Fund controlling the
decisions we take here. It seems to me that should be a much
greater concern when we examine some of these questions.
(1820)
In recent years the estimates of revenue have been well off, as
have many other estimates in the budget. That is the reason we
are here today discussing some of these concerns. The political
process left without any degree of fiscal discipline has failed us.
I compliment the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for
bringing forward this kind of proposal. It is a very common kind
of proposal, not just in political circles these days but indeed in
academic and intellectual circles where the fiscal constitutions
of parliaments and of governments are coming under some
examination. I speak of public choice literature and various
other matters.
Let us take a couple of examples of the kind of problem we
have in budgeting in the House of Commons. We know that the
last government, the Progressive Conservative government, of
which none of us are particular admirers, really based its fiscal
projections on revenue growth of 4.5 per cent per year basically
for eternity or at least to the end of the century. We know and the
Liberal government should well know that when it took office it
had to deal with the extent of misrepresentation that had entailed
and the kind of additional problems that created for its own plan.
In the last plan the government provided, as I have admitted
before, much more modest revenue estimates. But the
government largely adopted the interest rate assumptions of the
previous government. In the last budget just months ago the
government estimated that short term interest rates would be
around 4.5 per cent for this year and about 6.4 per cent for this
year on the long term side.
What is the fact? The fact is that the government is off 1 per
cent on short term rates and about 2.5 per cent on long term
rates. It finds itself now facing an additional unexpected crunch
because those kinds of poor estimates on interest rates with a
country that is so heavily in debt impact not only on the kind of
deficits and financial planning we have this year but will impact
dramatically in future years because of the compounding effect.
Therefore these are the kinds of suggestions governments
should be looking at in my view in order to facilitate their work,
both here in Parliament as governments with opposition and
ultimately with the public and the financial community.
Government members who have spoken have suggested, as I
mentioned earlier, their extreme and almost frantic concerns
about the Auditor General taking control of their voice as
elected officials. They seem unconcerned with the fact that the
whips exercise almost unlimited power over their party, but they
are concerned about the Auditor General. The strange thing
about these concerns about the power of the Auditor General and
the concern about opening up the entire subject matter is that
this is not a concern at the moment shared by their own
government.
As I understand it the government and the Department of
Finance are actively studying this very issue, as well they should
be. They should be acting of course but they are studying it. I
believe and I hope that at some point they will come forward
with recommendations to the House on the forecasting
processes that have been used and how they might be changed.
They are not just looking at Nova Scotia. They are looking
around the world. They are looking at what governments do in
places like the Netherlands and Australia on these kinds of
matters. The Auditor General is an appropriate individual to
look at this sort of information, both at forecasts as well as at
projections, as well as at various forecast scenarios that could be
used.
It is an approach that is increasingly used in the private sector.
There has been some reference that I have had opportunity to
review of late to the various guidelines that securities
commissions use and the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants use for evaluation of future oriented financial
information.
This is not something that would be invented out of thin air or
that the Auditor General is unfamiliar with. For example, when
companies go into the securities markets it is often the practice
that before they can issue debts their forecast will be reviewed
according to acceptable standards. That would be expected in
the investment market. Surely when we are talking about $40
billion deficits a year the taxpayers would expect the same kind
of reasonable evaluations of our financial state to have taken
place.
6670
(1825)
Let me just give some idea of some matters the CICA would
consider relevant in the examination of future oriented financial
information. It would examine all aspects of the procedures.
Public accountants would look at all aspects of the procedures
used in formulating both forecasts and projections. They would
look at the process of developing these forecasts and some of the
assumptions and hypotheses that are behind them, as well as the
preparation and presentation of financial forecast data and
management representations that were received.
This gives some idea of some of the things they would
evaluate whether, for instance, sufficient pertinent sources of
information about the assumptions had been considered by
management. These would include both external sources, what
forecasting firms would say, what government documents say,
what is available in various agreements, as well as internal
sources.
They would look at whether the assumptions were consistent
with the sources from which they were supposedly drawn,
whether they are internally consistent and mathematically
accurate, whether the historical, financial or other information
used in the assumptions was sufficiently reliable for the purpose
for which it was employed, whether other data are compatible
over the periods of time for which they are being used, and
whether the assumptions are consistent with the plans and
policies of the entity. Probably, most important, public
accountants would evaluate whether there is any bias in the
selection of assumptions by management which causes the
assumptions on an overall basis to be unduly optimistic or
pessimistic. We know there has been a habitual tendency of
government to be excessively optimistic, not simply in ways
that are optimistic by very marginal standards of judgment but
which are wildly optimistic and in fact indefensible by any
reasonable standard.
Of course that is the kind of criteria the Auditor General
would apply. The Auditor General would not second guess
reasonable assumptions or pertinent assumptions, but he would
second guess assumptions that were clearly and totally
unjustifiable.
In terminating my speech, let me say I support the bill. I
support the kind of matter it is looking into. I think if anything
the subject could be broadened, but certainly the House should
give its support to the bill. It should really consider seriously, as
a matter of general policy, bringing this aspect and all aspects of
government budgeting under established concepts of fiscal
discipline that exist in all other walks of life.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, as a
businessman I have often said that governments should be run
like businesses. Now, having been a politician for a year, I say
that government cannot be run like a business but it still should
be run more businesslike, in a business manner.
My speech is a little long so I will pick out some of the
highlights. I realize there cannot be an absolute parallel between
the private sector and government. In other words government
cannot hire the Auditor General. We do need that arm's length
distance.
The Auditor General, however, must be absolutely
independent of Parliament and cannot participate directly in the
budget planning process. However Parliament would be foolish
not to take advantage of the Auditor General's advice in
assessing the government's budget plans from the outset.
Why not have value for money audits conducted by the
Auditor General in conjunction with budget planning? Why not
have sunset clauses contained within all government programs,
including social programs, so that they run out after one year,
two years, three years, five years or whatever it takes? Then we
could see if we want to renew it, add more money, delete some
money, or cancel it altogether.
These are some of the things an auditor could do, working in
conjunction with the finance minister. The important thing, the
crux of the matter, is that governments must stop living on
borrowed money and stop refinancing current needs and desires
on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
In conclusion because the bureaucracy and politicians are
spending the money of other people, no wonder it is hard to
balance the budget. No wonder we cannot find out who is
responsible. No wonder ministers blame bureaucrats and
bureaucrats blame different departments of other departments
of bureaucracy. No wonder we have such big fiscal problems
within government. I really believe it is important that if we
could get the Auditor General to have more authority and
become more involved with the budgeting process in this
government not only would it complement and assist this
government, it would help all future governments and it would,
most important, help the people of Canada, the taxpayers.
(1830)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped
from the Order Paper.
6671
6671
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate on
normal House time, the hon. member for Calgary Centre has 30
seconds remaining and then a five-minute question period.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker,
objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not
partisan politics that are being played out by the Minister of
Human Resources Development. If we want to have a true social
conscience in this country and if that is what government wants
to provide, then let us help the truly needy and not continue the
practice of helping everyone lest we offend and possibly lose
votes.
Will the Liberals have the courage to act after they have
received the input they are seeking? The government must
govern, the government must lead, the government can only
consult for so long. It has already been a year. How much longer
do Canadians have to wait before their do-nothing, say-nothing,
feel-good leader puts the action plan on the table?
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, it is indeed
with pleasure that I participate in this debate which effectively
launches our review and reform of Canada's social security
system. Constituents in my riding of Brant have been anxiously
awaiting the tabling of this discussion paper. They want to see
what the options look like. They want to have input and they
want to suggest alternatives. I look forward to working with
them over the course of the next couple of months and in
bringing their advice and counsel back to this House and debate
it at a later time.
For the purposes of this intervention, I would like to take aim
at some of the criticisms that we have been taking and will
continue to have to deal with over the course of this review.
There are those who say that by undertaking this reform our
government is abandoning its Liberal roots. To my mind nothing
could be further from the truth. In fact, it was Liberal
governments in the sixties that wove together Canada's first
effective social safety net. They were responding to the needs of
Canadians at that time.
This system worked very well for us through the sixties and
the seventies, but now it is becoming dysfunctional. Is it wrong
for us to listen to single parents who tell us that they are caught
in the welfare cycle because they cannot find appropriate day
care for their children or because they cannot find a job that pays
them enough to meet and support the basic needs of their
families?
Is it wrong for us to listen to employers who say that our
training systems are ineffective? They prove this by saying that
they have to go to England and Europe to find technically
trained staff to help them do the work of their businesses.
Is it wrong for us to want to stop businesses from using the
unemployment insurance program as a wage supplement for
their employees? I think not. In fact, when I think about it, if we
had been the government over the last 10 years I believe we
would have continuously changed and modified our social
safety net so that this major intervention would not be necessary
today. Unfortunately, that is not the way things worked. To meet
the needs of Canadians we now have to make significant change.
This government will not shy away from that. I am proud to say
that I agree with its strategy.
Second, there are those who say to go ahead, embark on this
reform, but only do so if the purpose is to reduce the fiscal
deficit. I believe that indeed we have to take stock of our
economic times and that that has to be a major consideration in
the work that we do. However, the economic times that led to
this fiscal deficit have also created a huge social deficit in
Canada.
We are sending our children to school without appropriate
clothing and without enough food in their stomachs. We have
university graduates who cannot find that all important first job
and as such are threatening bankruptcy and, worse still, suicide
because they cannot repay their student loans.
We have men and women across this country whose skills and
abilities are not being utilized. They are undervalued, underused
and as such they are not able to contribute to their fullest
potential to help us reduce our fiscal deficit and to reduce our
social deficit.
(1835 )
If we do not deal with our social deficit there is no question
that it will add exponentially to our fiscal deficit. We cannot
support that. It is not sustainable and it is not right.
Third, I would like to comment on the criticisms that we are
receiving from some provinces, particularly my home province
of Ontario. The Government of Ontario is constantly saying it
feels that Ontarians are not getting their fair share from the
federal government. They point out, and rightly so, that the
federal government contributes about 50 per cent to the cost of
social programs in the province of Quebec and by and large in
the maritime provinces.
It points out that in Ontario that contribution is about 20 or 25
per cent. Let us look at the background here. Under the 50:50
cost sharing split that is part of the Canada assistance plan, it has
been provinces which have been able to afford to spend money
on social programs that received larger transfer payments.
6672
In the 1980s and certainly in 1990 with the partial
implementation of the SARC report, Ontario expanded and
enriched its social programs significantly. The federal
government decided to cap its transfers, deciding that its
responsibility was not so much to fund at all costs the
unilaterally created social programs of provinces but rather to
support the mandate we have under the Constitution, section
36, that says we are responsible to provide for Canadians no
matter where they live in this country reasonably the same level
of services for reasonable the same level of taxation.
Do not get me wrong. I do not accept and I do not agree that
the Canada assistance plan is the appropriate or the right way to
manage our transfers to the provinces. I would encourage all our
provincial partners to come to this table, sit down and discuss
the options that are tabled, suggest alternates, and help us make
sure that Canadians no matter where they live have equal access
to social security programs.
Finally, I would like to say that as a government our prime
role and purpose as we have stated time and again is to create
jobs and opportunities for Canadians. The initiative of the
Minister of Human Resources Development adds a dimension to
that commitment.
Coupled with the work of the Minister of Finance, who will be
tabling a statement in the next few weeks, and the work of the
Minister of Industry who will be tabling some information on
our micro economic status, possibilities and strategies for
economic growth, we will have a blueprint that will help us to
renew Canada.
I look forward to implementing that blueprint and being part
of a government that will in fact bring Canada back to the level
that it should be. In closing, I would like to quote from an
editorial that was written this week in my local newspaper The
Brantford Expositor. In reference to the initiative of the
Minister of Human Resources Development the editor writes:
Rightwingers will complain that the plan does not go far enough, that there
are too many people living off the government gravy train. Leftwingers will
object that the government is caving in to corporate interests and balancing its
budget on the backs of the poor. What sensible Canadians should do is try to
avoid being buried in all of this muck and take a long and serious look at what
Axworthy proposes because the time has come for real reform. Canadians who
are fed up with the high taxes and program recipients who are not getting the
help they really need stand to be hurt a lot more if things are not fixed.
I do not always agree with the editor of my local newspaper,
but this time we are at one. I want to thank the Minister of
Human Resources Development for the hard work that he has
put into this discussion paper and tell him that as a member of
Parliament I will be working hard with my constituents to make
sure they have input and that they are consulted in this process
so we can work effectively to restore Canada's social security
system.
(1840 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Madam Speaker, I congratulate
the member for her speech. It was well presented but I feel that
somehow it lacked the kind of commitment that Canadians are
looking for in terms of actual deficit reduction.
What I am driving at here is this. I do not believe in cutting for
cutting's sake but it is time to be more realistic and to realize
that spending $5 for every $4 we take in is going to eventually
cause us to hit a wall.
When I hear the different concerns and particularly that of
balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, it presupposes
that the only way one can look after those who do not have what
they need is to give them a handout. We need to really seriously
look at replacing handouts with work, with things that people
can do for themselves, and expand the involvement of family
and community in looking after needy people.
Instead of sending a dollar to Ottawa and having it eaten up by
bureaucracy and administration and then getting 10 cents back
to the person who needs it, we need to bring that more closely to
the people.
I would like to know the member's response to this question.
How can we be more efficient with the money that we are taking
from the taxpayers in order to look after those needs? How
amenable is she to making it more local, moving it to the
provinces and indeed even down to the communities?
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his comments. It sounds like he may have read the
document when he talks about the options that we require.
We are looking at ways to make sure that the programs fit the
needs of individuals, that they do participate and have a say in
the kinds of strategies and activities that we need to do to get
people back to work. That is the focus. We want to make sure
that we use the skills and abilities of all Canadians so that they
are contributing to the country and in effect help us reduce, as I
mentioned in my speech, our fiscal and our social deficit.
We cannot lose track or lose sight of the fact that if we do not
provide support for Canadians, we do carry a social deficit that
has real dollar cost. We as a party, and I am very proud of this,
look at things in a balanced fashion. I believe that that has been
our strength in the past and will continue to be our strength in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Madam Speaker, during
Question Period, the Minister of Human Resources
Development practically admitted that the proposed social
program reform would translate into savings of about $15
billion over the next four, five or six years. I was very surprised
to hear the previous speaker talk about employment in such a
context and I have a specific question to ask her. Could she
explain to me briefly how this reform will impact on
employment?
6673
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, there are a lot of
ways that this is going to have an impact on unemployment. As I
mentioned in my speech one of the things that I find is
happening in my constituency is that employers are unable to
find Canadians with the skills and abilities that they need to do
the technically advanced work of their businesses.
Through our program we want to encourage and focus
significantly on improving the training aspects that we have for
Canadians. Let us face it, if they have the skills to do the work,
they will find jobs.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to speak in support of the minister's
discussion paper on improving social security in Canada.
I suspect that few in this room or in the entire country for that
matter would dispute Canada's affluence and ability to sustain a
generous or even enviable social safety net. In fact, how many
countries can we identify that would love to be having this
debate right now. Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, Cuba, most recently
India, to name the more obvious, but also European countries.
Even the Americas would love to be engaged in a debate about
how to improve what is arguably one of the best social safety
nets in the world. I would say we are rather lucky. We are a
wealthy nation and we must remind ourselves of that as we
engage in this discussion.
(1845)
I would like to point out that many people have stated a need
for reform of our social safety programs. Most Canadians agree
that change is imperative. The basis of this need for change
comes from two sides. One, we must cut because of the debt and
the deficit situation. Others argue that our social programs were
born of a different time and place, a different era, and that they
are now simply out of date and need modernizing and
restructuring to better reflect the current needs of our citizens.
It is this second position with which I agree. Our programs
have become dated and there is an absolute need to restructure
whatever assistance the government can provide to better reflect
the contemporary needs of Canadians. I do not deny that
financing our ideological generosity over the long term means
attending to our deficit, but we do not have to compromise our
ideology or our generosity, or force the burden of prudence on to
the backs of those in need.
New directions are necessary. Some will cost money but
savings can be realized by improving inefficiencies within the
system. We can improve the way we deliver assistance and
reduce the amount of overlap and duplication. We can achieve
savings by devolving some responsibilities to the provinces. We
do not want to cut simply for the sake of cutting. I believe the
government has the plan to bring about our badly needed social
policy reform.
Foremost, we recognize and fully embrace the need for open
and informed consultation with all Canadians. We must if we are
to be the architects of a safety net for generations to come,
exercise the greatest prudence, and the greatest patience in
engaging Canadians in this historic debate. It has to be a system
made by Canadians if it is meant to serve Canadians.
I want to commend the Minister of Human Resources
Development for his strong personal commitment to a thorough,
comprehensive and meaningful consultation on this issue. His
commitment is one I urge all members to rely on, to appreciate
the need to seek out the views of every constituent in every
riding of the country, to want really to know what it is our
constituents want.
It has been suggested that the Reform proposals represent
firm decisions and that we as members on this side are involved
in selling a plan. As you can tell from my comments, it is not my
intention nor is it the intention of the government. Rather, my
effort today is designed to sell a process, a need to involve
Canadians in this important debate.
There are certainly elements of the discussion paper that
excite me, particularly those involving helping children and its
general direction to more active social programming I
wholeheartedly support.
Specifically as a New Brunswicker I can attest to the fact that
we have been engaged in a similar debate at the provincial level.
Such discussion and debate has resulted in a conception of some
forward-looking social programs in our province such as the
community academic services program, a literacy training
program, and job corps to name just two.
It is the vision behind these creative partner-based programs
at the local level that underpins the federal government's
renewal initiative. The benchmark for our success is not how
much money the government can save, rather it is whether such
programs are beneficial and effective in the lives they are
intended to improve. That is the objective that must be brought
to the government's desire to reform the social safety net. It
must be the guiding principle for decisions taken and it should
be the framework adopted by all members of the House when
they seek input from the constituents in their respective ridings.
I personally learned a great deal from the forum on social
policy held in my riding in April. I know that my constituents
are encouraged by the fact that they have been asked to help in
the minister's reform proposals. My constituents recognize
what a proposal means. It is something offered, something
suggested, and they know their opinions will be welcomed and
valued in helping transform a proposal into reality.
6674
We in Fredericton-York-Sunbury are ready for October 30
when we reconvene to discuss this important reform again. We
are anxious to offer whatever assistance we can to the minister
because we, too, want a safety net designed to suit our needs
both now and in the future.
(1850 )
We must listen to Canadians. The magnitude of this debate is
such that its success will depend on achieving some kind of
national consensus. In order to achieve that consensus we must
assure ourselves and all Canadians that apart from our new
social program regime, every effort is made to attend all
possible opportunities on the revenue side and elsewhere on the
expenditure side.
We must be as creative and fair as we possibly can in
addressing our fiscal situation or we will not be able to count on
the support of those who need to know the system is fair. We
must remind ourselves that our social programs have and
continue to be designed with a purpose; to mitigate against
poverty, inequity, regional disparity and uneven opportunity.
The reality now is that the fault lies with the system, an
outdated system on which far too many with tremendous
capabilities have to depend. Our labour market needs these
people but we have to find better ways to marry the employment
needs of Canadians with the employment needs of Canada.
We are entering a more enlightened era of governing and of
offering aid to citizens who need assistance. We have progressed
through earlier notions of simple charity and through the 1960s
notion of entitlement.
I am pleased that in this reform we are moving further along
that continuum. We now recognize the differences between
those with and those without, the haves and the have nots, the
empowered and the enfranchised and those unempowered and
disenfranchised. These differences are far greater than merely
money and material assets.
These differences are far more fundamental; differences in
skills, confidence, access to opportunity be it financial,
academic or professional. These are the factors and the
measures against which we must judge the integrity, suitability,
sustainability and success of our social programs.
These are the dimensions needed to reflect an enlightened,
holistic, modern approach to people, their needs, their goals and
their personal desires. I want to emphasize that the cornerstone
of this exercise is to recognize the importance of giving people
control over their own lives, to let individuals themselves be the
decision makers and architects of their own destiny.
Our paternalistic system of defining and administering to the
needs of people is approaching an end. I cannot overstate, as we
engage in this transition, our need to provide short term support
during the progression from unemployment to employment.
As a New Brunswicker I am proud of the fact that we are
moving in the direction of greater independence. Just as we need
to be able to rely on the support of the federal government to
help us through this transition, so too do citizens struggling to
improve their own lot in life.
Practically, I would propose special consideration must be
given to the unique seasonal nature of the Atlantic Canada
workforce. I wholeheartedly support the need to offer training,
counselling and choices to those historically dependent on
federal programs such as unemployment insurance.
I would also maintain the need for continued income support
where present circumstances simply do not allow for many
seasonal workers to enjoy a sufficient annual income. We must
seize the opportunity to make the entire social system more
client based, more efficient, less bogged down, less heavily
weighted with administrative infrastructure.
I conclude by appealing to all Canadians to participate in this
review regardless of their personal predisposition or politics.
Even past positions should not get in the way of helping the
government do what is right by Canadians. Lives are at stake,
many people are depending on us. We cannot allow the impact of
the exercise to be dismissed.
I believe that the solutions to the challenges before us lie in
the hearts and minds of compassionate, caring, committed
Canadians. Change is necessary. Resources are scarce. We must
collectively, hopefully collegially, create a new system that
captures the generosity and compassion of Canadians that have
served us so long and so well.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member who spoke before me. I found his
presentation very philosophical. I would like to tell him about a
very practical case that I dealt with today in my office, which
reflects some of the details of this reform. After hearing about
the proposed reforms on television, one of my constituents gave
me some historical background. I will read it to you and I will
certainly ask questions on this.
(1855)
To put things in their historical context, if your parents or
your grandparents had mentally handicapped relatives, they
would have been put to work on the farm. Nowadays, with
automation, these people have become vulnerable to
unemployment. How many people in Canada are handicapped
and cannot work because of a deficiency? Whatever their
handicap, many places will not hire them.
6675
Is this new reform penalizing these people who want to work
but were abandoned by the industry? Many of them are, through
no fault of their own, permanently unemployed. There are many
of them, more than we may think. Do you think that this reform
will include some mechanism to prevent these vulnerable
people from being penalized by the proposed measures? That
is the question I want to ask my distinguished colleague.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for the questions. It allows me the
opportunity to speak specifically to the rather targeted nature of
the changes. A large part of the reason we are engaged in this
discussion has to do with the fact that the Minister of Human
Resources Development has invited Canadians to help priorize
what is important to social policy spending.
I would say the member has hit the nail on the head. We have
to make sure there are sufficient opportunities for those people
who are not able to be employed. At the same time, we have to
make sure there are opportunities for people, regardless of
disability, who would like to work and very often can work, but
are constrained by a system that requires them to define
themselves as being unemployable to get benefits.
It is deplorable that people who otherwise would love to be
working-in many cases that is the case in that particular
community-are restricted by virtue of the programs they are
participating in. I welcome the opportunity to point that out.
Regarding the rather philosophical nature of my discourse I
can only say I really believe that is the tone we should bring to
this debate as we launch it, because we want to involve
Canadians. The first place to start is the values around which
this review should take place.
Clearly my background as a proud member of the party that I
support leans me toward supporting the kinds of programs that
would offer opportunity to the people the member mentions. As
we engage the nation in this debate we are all obliged to set out
the parameters and bring a philosophical framework to the
discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Madam Speaker, I have
lots of sympathy for the Liberal members who must rise in this
House and speak in favour of a bill which is not justifiable. It is
unjustifiable because it does not state things clearly.
When they talk about such a bill being compassionate, when
they pretend its intent is to meet people's needs, when we know
quite well it is meant to save money, I might agree with the idea
of saving money, but they are not telling it as it is, and I do not
agree with that.
During the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois said we
should cut government spending by $10 billion. The
government adopted part of our ideas and is trying to cut back,
but in all the wrong places. Instead of reducing government
spending, they cut into the social safety net we painstakingly set
up by paying out large sums of money and they do not touch the
machinery of government. Who will benefit ultimately?
Students who will see their tuition fees increase? How can they
pretend this bill meets their needs? Women who will now
receive unemployment benefits only if they prove their spouse
is not earning too much? How can this bill meet the needs of
those people? How will the frequently unemployed who will see
their benefits decrease-
(1900)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Unfortunately, your
time has expired unless you can reply in 30 seconds.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, in my 30 seconds I would say that I also feel sympathy
for my colleague. Never having sat in opposition I sympathize
with the nature of this place being somewhat adversarial. It is
very difficult for members on the other side to see the benefits of
some of the things that are proposed. So perhaps we share a
sympathy toward each other.
As to the fact that my colleague claims his party has told us
about its deficit reduction plans, our plan is to reduce the deficit
by the end of the third year to 3 per cent of the gross domestic
product.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, here it is finally, the famous social security reform we
have been hearing about for such a long time. Since I am a
member of the Human Resources Development Committee, I
can tell you the birth was a laborious process because we started
with a project for an action plan and ended up with a discussion
paper and that is almost the opposite of what should normally
happen.
At the outset, the social security reform was to be a job
creation tool. There is no job creation proposal in the program
tabled. It was to be a source of pride, an incentive for Quebecers
to stay in Canada, but I think it will be more of an incentive to
the contrary.
In fact, the reform project we have here does nothing but
manage the inefficiencies of the existing system. It contains
nothing that would lead to true job creation. To find some good
points, we can say that there is an excellent illustration here of
what is going wrong. We are told, for instance, that in 1968 the
unemployment rate was at 5 per cent in Canada. In 1982, it was
at 9.3 per cent. That was from the beginning of the Trudeau years
to the period just before the arrival of Mr. Mulroney in office. In
1993, it was at 10.2 per cent. What kind of system has produced
that? In what kind of country are we living to get results such as
this?
6676
In a graph that we find here, we are also told that there are
20 per cent more jobs for university graduates than a few years
ago. For people with post-secondary diplomas, there are 6 per
cent more jobs and for people without these diplomas, 20 per
cent less jobs. If we would follow the normal logic of this, we
would say that we will have to find ways to get jobs for those
people without post-secondary diplomas.
But on the contrary, the government is going on a witch hunt,
only it is the unemployed who are the prey. It has decided that
there would possibly be two categories of unemployed now: the
unemployed who are using unemployment insurance
occasionally, by accident, and the others, the bad people, those
who are using it three, four, five times in five years, in fact, the
seasonal workers. Lester B. Pearson must be spinning in his
grave when he sees what the Liberals have done, because this
reform is simply a continuation of what the Conservatives
would have done last year.
Yesterday, the previous minister responsible, Mr. Valcourt,
was laughing his head off on television because he, at least, had
said during the election campaign that he would do that, so he
was defeated because people did not want that. Liberals won
because they were saying that they would create jobs, but they
are going back to the Conservative program. The message for
Canadians will be that Liberals or Conservatives, it comes to the
same thing and that next time, they will be out too. But that will
be the task of the Canadians, because we will surely have chosen
to get out of this boat which is sinking.
What I would like to say is that when people who are working
in peat bogs in Saint-Ludger-de-Rivière-du-Loup or
Rivière-Ouelle, when people who are working in the forests will
see this, they will not feel disillusion, but anger and discontent.
They will only feel like coming to tell us, and I hope they do so
before the committee, that this is crazy. Whoever wrote this has
not been outside of Ottawa for a long time.
(1905)
As for the minister who approves this kind of paper, he
probably has a department where so much is going on that it is
easy for people to slip things past him from time to time. In any
case, what we see on the Table has no connection with the
economic situation in my part of Quebec or the Maritimes or
regions that survive on seasonal employment, and the paper
contains nothing that meets the needs of people in our part of the
country.
How did we get into this situation? First of all, we have to say
that Canada is a regular dinosaur. Its reaction time is slower than
anything I have ever seen.
Last year in October 1993, we had a promise that reforms
would be introduced as soon as possible. Now, we have a
working paper. First it was proposals for reform, then a plan of
action and now we have a working paper. I suppose the next
version will be a draft prepared by the successor of the present
minister.
Finally, the process broke down for the same reasons it will
break down again. There was a refusal to confront structural
problems. When we look at Canada, I think we have to be
perfectly honest and say: The real problem is not that the federal
government did not have the right ideas at the right time. The
problem is that the whole architecture of the system has to be
changed. If I were a federalist, I would say we have to
decentralize to adapt solutions to local needs. I know it is
practically impossible to change the system, so for us the answer
would be to create another country next door with a more decent
approach to the needs of its people.
The other point I wanted to raise was how we got into this
situation. The answer is that we keep perpetuating major sources
of duplication. In Quebec, we created the Société québécoise du
développement de la main-d'oeuvre, an agency that was ready
to take on the entire responsibility for manpower training.
Today, however, this agency, which was ready and willing to go
ahead, is just marking time because no agreement has been
reached by the federal and provincial governments. Annually,
$250 million is being wasted in the case of Quebec alone,
because the federal government has refused to decentralize
responsibility for manpower training.
Far too much time and energy is spent on consultation at the
local level, because people who live in the regions have to get
organized any way, whether we are talking about the people at
the SQDM or Employment and Immigration. They will do what
they can because they know the people in the community and
they are able to work with them. However, the time spent on
consultation is time they would otherwise have been able to
invest in developing employment in their community. There is a
lesson here, but there is nothing in the reform paper that
addresses these issues.
The federal government therefore insists on playing a role in
professional skills training. We have known for years that the
federal government's involvement was pure duplication. For
years we have had a consensus in Quebec. Employers, unions,
political parties, everybody is on the same wavelength. You do
not see such agreement very often, and we should capitalize on
it. Even the federal government should have understood that.
Yet, for whatever reason, we always avoid coming up with the
real solution. The reason might be that the vision is too
bureaucratic. It has been too long since a minister was really in
control.
It is high time that cabinet shape up and say that it is really in
charge. Maybe it could start by travelling throughout Canada to
find out what people need and then translate that into orders to
their deputies. Then they could tell them: ``From now on, that is
what you are going to do'', instead of ``Give me the report so
that I can know what to answer during Question Period.''
6677
There is another reason why this reform is not satisfactory,
and I will show it with an example. There really is a double
standard in the government. Let us compare family trusts and
the reform of social programs and unemployment insurance.
For months, we have been trying to get information on family
trusts, to find out how much money is involved. We are not even
saying that family trusts are unacceptable, because we do not
know. The government refuses to produce any information on
the matter. We are unable to find out how much money is
invested in those trusts and the government is not helping.
Conversely, for unemployment insurance, we get all possible
information on the number of unemployed, on the percentage of
those who have used UI three, four or five times during the last
five years.
(1910)
The government can keep close track of people who have a
much smaller income. With the new reform, an individual who
applies for UI benefits will be required to disclose the financial
situation of his or her spouse to see if that person really needs
UI.
We are faced with a situation in which people who make
$20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year will have to meet
requirements that do not exist when it comes to family trusts
worth tens of millions of dollars. According to a survey, the
average family trust has assets amounting to $10 million. Would
it not be possible to spend as much time going after family trusts
as we are trying to fix unemployment insurance?
The government is turning unemployment insurance into a
fiscal management tool when historically it has been a way to
redistribute wealth and to allow people in different regions of
the country to make a decent living. On the other hand, it permits
family trusts to put billions of dollars in tax havens for 80 years.
Before, we had a 21-year rule, but in 1992, it was decided to
add 60 years to it. Eighty years without paying any tax. Even if,
in the end, you still have to pay that gives you a lot more time to
plan your taxes than when every two weeks you have to fill out a
card to see whether or not you have worked during these past two
weeks. This is some kind of a double standard, and I believe that
the government is largely to be blamed for it.
That brings me to a matter which, in my mind, is of the utmost
importance in all that. I mean the independence issue. In
Quebec, we are often asked what will happen if Quebec
separates. This proposed reform of our social programs brings
me to ask myself a much more pertinent question: what will
happen if Canada keeps on going in this same direction?
What we are offered for the next few years is cuts in the
unemployment insurance program, a witch hunt against
unemployed workers, and a two-tier system. Some system! The
government will keep track of each claimant with a smart card.
The rate of benefit will depend on how often he will have
applied. Employers' premiums will be calculated according to
the unemployment rate in their industry or the rate of cyclical
unemployment they generate.
Personally I am not interested in the kind of country this will
produce. It will not eliminate waste. We will still have a very
costly bureaucracy. Therefore, I believe that it is important for
Quebecers, Canadians also, but mostly Quebecers, to look at
this project in the context of their future.
Of course, if Quebec becomes a sovereign country, we will
not find ourselves in paradise overnight. We will have to manage
things, to decide how to allocate funds, but we will at least be in
a system where we can control all the data and decide that the
system-whether someone is unemployed and on welfare or a
real unemployed worker who receives UI benefits-should be
changed and managed from a single data base by a government
with all the tools needed to deal with the problem.
At the present time, the UI part of the system is handled by the
federal government while Quebec is responsible for part of
welfare. The federal proposal even encourages the provinces to
opt out of welfare by giving them ``candy'' so that they feel
compelled to join the federal program. It is very clear, I think,
that this is not the way of the future.
(1915)
Only yesterday, three provinces with more than 60 per cent of
Canada's population immediately said no to the proposed
reform. I think that their position is justified in the light of their
responsibility and desire to do the right thing in the future.
I think it is important for Quebecers to say that they do not
want that kind of Canada and to realize the painful situation they
are in because of the national debt, a large part of which is due to
the country's structure and confirmed by the proposed social
reform program.
I think that people want a different country that can and wants
to be on the move. Canada seems stuck in a vision and a structure
preventing us from evolving and getting anywhere.
As I said earlier, I feel like we are finally witnessing the end of
the Canada that was put in place, amazingly enough, by the
Liberal Party itself. Let us look back at the Pearson years, even
at the first years of the Trudeau government when there was a
desire to be fair to the people. The reform discussion paper that
was tabled this week marks the first-class burial of this desire to
redress the balance in the Canadian economy.
6678
This proposed reform also includes significant setbacks,
notably for women. The right to collect benefits will now be
linked to spousal income, which takes us back a few years. We
are going back to a situation where, for 20, 25 or 30 years,
women fought to gain independence and pull the rug from under
them in what I referred to earlier as unemployment
management. Instead of developing a plan that would promote,
through a constructive policy, job creation, all that is achieved
through this reform is unemployment management.
To conclude, I will tell the minister this, as the opportunity
arises for opinions to be voiced throughout Canada, although the
government seems to have already made up its mind: I
encourage individuals who are part of groups representing those
members of our society who need assistance as well as
employers and anyone who wants this country to function
properly to come and tell this government what is not working in
here.
Reports from the OECD and other international organizations
on the unemployment situation often show that, in every country
that has relied only on employability and done nothing else
besides developing rules of employability, the funds required
were never made available and, at the end of the day, it was a
dead loss.
I suggest that the government must think things over to ensure
that, if opportunities to increase employability are created, there
will also be jobs available. Otherwise, this reform may produce
nothing but more dissatisfaction.
To paraphrase Gilles Vigneault, let me warn the minister that
by blustering like that, he is stirring up quite a storm.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, a while
ago, I heard a Liberal member state that we should take our own
destiny in our own hands. This involves a great many things,
particularly for women. But what this green paper contains
concerning women is plain awful.
Just today, I think my staff has received about 50 telephone
calls from women in my riding who are worried. They are
worried because they have fought for years to get recognized
and carve a place for themselves in society.
(1920)
Today, they are told: ``From now on, when you apply for UI
benefits, we will check your husband's income to determine how
much you will get''. That is disgusting!
For 20 to 25 years, women have fought, they have fought
something fierce, to take their place in society. Today, with this
legislation, we are telling them that they no longer have a place
in this society. We are simply telling them: ``From now on, you
will be dependent upon your spouse's income''. That is totally
unacceptable.
I represent a riding the economy of which depends on the
tourist industry to the tune of 90 per cent. Some of my
constituents are seasonal workers. They work, 10, 11, perhaps
12 weeks, I do not know exactly. They will be penalized
because, according to this green paper, they are usually
unemployed. But that is not so; they are people who depend on
tourism for a living.
You know what I would do with that reform? I would take it
and just throw it in the garbage because I do not believe in it. I
sincerely believe that we must cut where it really counts. Do not
cut the women who have fought so hard, do not cut people who
really depend on it. It is not their fault. They would like to work
all year if it were possible, but it is impossible for them. These
people really depend on seasonal work.
I think it is totally wrong to cut there. Cut the family trusts.
Cut where the cuts should be made.
I was a businesswoman before being elected to Parliament
and I tell you that I never refused to pay my taxes. When I made
money, I never refused to give some to the government. But
today, the government is going to take money from the less
fortunate.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
thought we were in the period of questions and comments. This
is not supposed to be a period for another speech. I was
expecting the hon. member to put a question to her colleague or
to make some short comments in accordance with the rule, but it
certainly is not an opportunity to make another speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pillitteri): Does the member have
a question?
Mrs. Guay: My question is coming. Is that it?
Mr. Allmand: That is it.
Mrs. Guay: Fine.
[Translation]
My question is for my dear colleague from the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup: I would like to have your
opinion on how women are treated in this green paper and
especially on the situation of people who have seasonal jobs.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her
question. First, she herself was a self-employed businesswoman
before she was elected. When she talks about what women go
through, I am sure that it is a true reflection of reality.
In this regard, as a member of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources, I will make an extra effort to have that
problem considered. I also call on her to ask women's groups to
come and present their views to us so that we can make the
government move on this.
6679
As for seasonal jobs, I would answer her with an image and
draw her attention to a particular aspect. This reform goes back
to the vocabulary on welfare reform used by the defeated
Liberal government in Quebec. They talked about bad welfare
recipients, people who did not want to work. Now we are
hearing the same thing. Seasonal workers who use
unemployment insurance regularly will be penalized. After an
unemployed person has made three claims in five years, he will
be told: ``You have a bad mark on your file. The next time you
apply, you will get less.'' So he is made to feel a little guilty
for a situation that he is not at all responsible for.
(1925)
There are industries in which there will always be seasonal
employment. In some regions of the country, forestry,
agriculture and tourism will always be seasonal activities. There
will never be year-round work available. Moreover, workers in
these industries are not necessarily prepared to train for jobs
which do not exist in their region.
If a person works in a restaurant for 15 or 18 weeks during the
summer, you can train him to become a technician, but if there
are no jobs for technicians in his region, you are wasting money.
This is the conclusion reached by the OECD in a study on
unemployment. In all the countries where attempts were made to
increase employability without a job creation policy, these
efforts were futile. The government will have some time to
reconsider, and I hope it will.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my eyes really filled with
tears listening to the lugubrious comments about seasonally
employed workers. Does the hon. member believe that it is fair,
right or even decent that low paid people who work the year
round and faithfully pay into UIC are the ones who are paying to
support extremely highly paid seasonal workers in certain
industries?
For example, I think of fallers in the logging industry in
British Columbia. It is not uncommon at all for them to pull
$300 a day. They work for a few months and then go on pogey. It
is the poor worker who is paying for that. A lot of these people
are married. Their spouses work the year round so they have
double income. That is not reflected in their benefits.
I wonder if he thinks this is fitting and proper. Even in his own
province he will find diamond drillers, for example, in Abitibi
who make $150 to $200 a day. They work seasonally, go on
pogey and have a good time. It is the poor, hard working person
flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and paying year round into
the fund who is supporting these people.
I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is important not to go overboard. Some people may
abuse the system, but problems will not be solved by imposing
strict measures right across the country.
Some parts of the country have particular problems. It may be
the case back home too. However, the government will not solve
a specific problem by implementing a national solution which
penalizes a number of workers. Such cases require a more
individual approach to correct the situation. In its present form,
the reform is based on the premise that seasonal workers do not
want permanent jobs, and that is just not true.
In my riding, many people work in the tourism, agriculture or
fishing industry, including eel fishing. These people want to
work. There is a continuous flow of people coming to my office
because they are looking for work, but jobs must be available. A
reform like this one would give interesting results only if it
included a real job creation strategy. But this is not the case.
(1930)
Canada is losing ground in terms of productivity, having
slipped from 4th place to 14th. We are now behind several small
countries such as Denmark and Sweden, which have control
over their whole economic development and which are not
fighting a federal structure preventing them from performing
and getting interesting results. These countries have managed to
find solutions while also showing compassion for those who
have special needs.
The discussion paper alludes to a guaranteed minimum
income, but the idea is immediately rejected on the grounds that
it would be too costly to implement. The fact that our population
is scattered all over the country, that Quebecers and Canadians
have settled throughout the country is a plus. We must ensure
that the people can live where they chose to and are given the
means to develop their economy. No witch hunt or unemployed
hunt will solve our problems. We should rather hunt for jobs so
that each and every Canadian can find a position in which he or
she can grow and contribute to Canada's wealth.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Madam
Speaker, tonight we are debating the government's discussion
paper on social security in Canada entitled ``Jobs and Growth''.
I must say that I take the government at its word when it says this
is a discussion paper. It is not a law or bill as I heard a few
minutes ago from one of the Bloc Quebecois members. It is not
the last word. It is not cast in stone. It is a discussion paper.
6680
It covers such things as unemployment insurance, the Canada
assistance plan, assistance to post-secondary education,
training, child support and some other matters. However it does
not cover our pension program, nor does it cover our medicare
program which are being examined in other studies. Many of
us are extremely interested in knowing what proposals will
come out of those studies.
This discussion paper has certainly identified some serious
problems and I congratulate the government for doing that. It
has identified the very serious problem of child poverty. It has
identified the problems of disincentives for work in many of our
welfare programs, and other things.
It has also emphasized some excellent goals. For example
there is the goal of lifelong training, the need to continually
upgrade our training and our ability to compete in the modern
world. There is the goal of a national day care program to permit
many women to go to work and earn their living.
All that having been said, I have some serious concerns about
some of the proposals in this discussion paper. First of all, with
respect to unemployment insurance, if I understand it correctly
the paper proposes a 10 per cent cut in unemployment insurance
benefits amounting to about $1.7 billion. This is on top of the
cuts of about $2.4 billion that were made in the government's
budget in the spring.
The government says in this discussion paper that these cuts
in unemployment insurance benefits will be used for training.
Well, let me point out that historically in this country the
unemployment insurance fund was never used for training. It
was used to provide support for persons who were unemployed
against their will. It helped them to buy the food that was
necessary for their family, to pay the rent and to pay the
necessary expenses while they were unemployed. It was only
under the Tory government of Brian Mulroney that moneys were
taken in large amounts out of the unemployment insurance fund
to pay for training. Historically that fund was never meant for
training and it was not used for training for years and years.
Also, I have a concern that in taking so much money out of the
unemployment insurance fund and reducing benefits we are
going to leave short those people who are already fully trained.
There are many unemployed people who are fully trained. What
they need to help them are jobs. They do not need more training.
What they need is enough money to keep them and their families
going until the next job comes along, until the economy
improves.
(1935 )
I am also concerned about the unemployment insurance
proposals because of what they might do to seasonal employees.
I listened to a member of the Reform Party who suggested that
seasonal employees prefer to go on what he calls the pogey. Very
few workers prefer to go on the pogey. As a matter of fact as a
result of amendments made to the act under the Conservatives if
you leave employment you totally lose your unemployment
insurance benefits.
I am familiar with the construction industry. The people in
Canada's construction industry have a tough time during the
winter. They would prefer to work the whole year long, but it is
difficult to do that in many parts of Canada because of our
climate. They do not prefer to go on unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance is a definite reduction in income for
them but it is all they have in the winter, even though their wages
are good when they are working.
The other thing they must keep in mind is that Canada is a
country with many one industry towns. There are people living
in towns that for example are almost completely mining towns,
such as Sudbury, Ontario. For people who are fully trained and
excellent workers in the mining industry when the world market
for a metal goes down and all those people are put out of work, it
is not a question of retraining. It is a question of making sure
those workers have enough money to see them through until the
market price for copper, nickel, or whatever goes up again.
I can remember a few years ago when the market prices for
copper plunged. Thousands of workers were put out of work in
Sudbury. These were fully trained, highly skilled mining
workers but thank god for the unemployment insurance system
because it saw them through until the market prices for those
metals went up again.
There are many one industry towns in Canada, whether they
are lumber towns, mining towns, railroad towns and so on.
Finally, I have to ask whether any government now has the
right to tamper with the unemployment insurance program. The
Mulroney Tories withdrew the government's contribution to the
unemployment insurance fund which was about $4 billion.
Before Mulroney did that the unemployment insurance fund was
made up of contributions from workers, employers and the
government out of general revenue, especially when the rate of
unemployment went above 6 per cent. Mulroney stopped that
and we criticized Mulroney severely for doing that.
Now many workers and unions say if it is only workers and
employers who are contributing to the fund, they should control
the fund as is done in Germany. In Germany a corporation is
made up of representatives from the unions and the employers
which controls the unemployment insurance fund, sets the
benefits, sets the rates of contribution and so on. I have concern
about that.
6681
I am fully in support of the goal in the paper that we need
much more training. Of course we need much more training but
not as we said in previous years out of the unemployment
insurance fund. Training benefits the whole society. It should
be paid for out of general revenue and not by the contributions
of workers and employers who are contributing to a fund that
is to see them through when they are unfortunately put out of
work. Therefore I have concern about that particular provision.
I also have concern about this concept that jobs are the answer
to the poverty and the social security problem in Canada. There
are many working poor in Canada. For many young people a job
alone is not the answer. We must look at what kind of jobs people
are getting these days. There are a growing number of people,
especially women, working in service type jobs. They get
minimum wage, it is temporary or part time work, no union, no
benefits. They cannot start a family. It is almost impossible for a
young person to get ahead in those kinds of jobs.
Somebody mentioned McDonald's. Unfortunately there are
too many people working in McDonald's type jobs. I like a big
mac from time to time myself but that is not the type of
employment which is going to enable people to get married,
start a family and buy a home.
I am also concerned with the provisions in the paper with
respect to universities. Under the present program the
government gives money to the provinces to assist with
post-secondary education. We know that money is
committed-there have been some problems with some
provinces-but it is committed to the universities. The
universities to a certain extent have some guarantee of funding
with that money.
Under this proposal we terminate that type of funding. We
give more money to students so that they will have more money,
it is said, to pay tuition at whatever university they please. With
this proposal we will find that universities are left in a doubtful
position. They have guarantees of funding now. They will not
have guarantees. There will be very serious risks. Students may
decide not to go to university. They may decide not to get those
loans. They should, but they may not.
(1940)
We in Canada need world class universities. In my city of
Montreal I would say we have four world class universities:
McGill, Université de Montréal, Concordia, Université du
Québec à Montréal. With this kind of proposal I do not know
what will happen to those types of what I call world class
universities, when they are not assured of that type of funding.
In conclusion, I have to say I do not know to what extent this
reform package is being driven by demands of the Department
of Finance and the problems of the deficit. All I can say is that
we said in the election campaign that we would deal with the
deficit by economic growth and jobs, not by cuts. Consequently,
I am a bit concerned by what I read in this paper.
I am also concerned by the suggestion that there is not enough
money for these types of social programs. I believe we should
cut out waste wherever waste is present, but on the other hand I
see too many instances in our society where there is waste in
consumption. We are closing hospitals. At the same time there is
an unbridled pressure to buy more and more consumer goods
which are not essential.
Madam Speaker, I see you signalling my time is up. Let me
say this: There are some good proposals in this document, but
there are some that give me grave concern. I will reserve
judgment on those. I will see how the discussion goes in the
country. I encourage Canadians to participate in the discussion,
but I hope these proposals are not the last word, that they are not
written in stone.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, I listened to the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and I must say that he
was true to himself. This government member has shown some
independence of mind, by voicing his own concerns. It is
interesting to hear such statements in this House.
He began by addressing the issue of unemployment and
decrying the practices and orientations of the previous
Conservative government, under Mr. Mulroney, and I want to
indicate to him that I have come to the same conclusion after
reading the discussion paper, and that is that the unemployment
insurance fund should still be used to support training.
Then, the hon. member mentioned his concerns regarding the
universities, and I agree with him. I took note of these two points
he raised. As far as the unemployment insurance situation, for
which he blames the Conservatives, and the universities are
concerned, if the hon. member has read the same document I did
yesterday or today, he must have come to the same conclusion I
reached. I think that the universities are very concerned about
the increase of students indebtedness, the rise in tuition fees and
the reduction of transfers to the provinces and that these issues
concern the hon. member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, so I would
appreciate his comments on this.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of
my remarks, this paper identifies some real problems with our
social security system. I congratulate the government for
putting those problems before us and offering some alternative
solutions.
6682
I also said it emphasized some goals which I approve of. I
approve of the goal of eliminating child poverty. I approve of
the goal of eliminating the disincentives from the welfare
system. On the other hand I said I had serious concerns about
some of the alternative proposals for unemployment insurance
and for assistance to the universities.
I speak with respect to unemployment insurance because I
was the critic in opposition for five years on questions of
unemployment insurance and employment. For five years I was
the critic for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I
criticized both Flora MacDonald and Bernard Valcourt when
they brought in bills which did some of these things.
(1945 )
Our government is putting forward this discussion paper in an
attempt to get some discussion started on how to deal with the
problems in the system. I do not deny there are problems in the
system. The discussion paper has overlooked the fact that we
have many one-industry towns in Canada, that we have many
seasonal workers, that we have many workers who are fully
trained. They do not need training when they are unemployed,
they need enough money to help them and their families.
I am being consistent with the position I have taken for years
and years, especially with respect to the Conservative
government under Brian Mulroney who made some very terrible
changes in the unemployment insurance system. I hope we do
not do this. I hope some of these things are not written in stone,
that they are not the last word. That is what a discussion paper is
supposed to be.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate a bit on a
couple of aspects of the unemployment insurance program.
Does my hon. colleague feel that unemployment insurance is
actually unemployment insurance, and whether the premiums
paid by both employee and employer should be commensurate
with risk so that it is in fact unemployment insurance. The other
question is this. What about the person earning $50,000 and
working six months versus a person earning $16,000 a year who
works day in and day out-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. The hon.
member has scarcely one minute.
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question yes,
it should be a real insurance program. I refer to the program in
Germany where the Germans have a quasi-public corporation
made up of employers and employee representatives. They
decide what the rate of premium should be and what the rate of
benefits should be. It is strictly an unemployment insurance
program and has been proposed by some of the unions in
Canada.
With respect to those who have high wages and those who
have lower wages, the member knows that even under the
present system there are caps on what the high wage earner will
contribute and there are caps on what they will receive.
What the $50,000 a year man might receive in unemployment
insurance benefits is nowhere near his $50,000 income. We have
four categories of contributions and four categories of benefits.
They are subject to fairly low limits when one considers the
plight they face today.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Madam
Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak tonight on
social security reform.
May I add that I am also proud to serve a Prime Minister who
has had the wisdom and courage to deal with an issue that will
lead Canadians into the 21st century. I would also like to
congratulate the Minister of Human Resources Development
whose hard work, perseverance and leadership have resulted in
an initiative whose fruition will be absolutely essential to the
well-being of Canadians.
Our reform of social security is not being done in isolation. It
is one of four components of the government's job and growth
agenda, which also includes ensuring a healthy fiscal climate,
reviewing government programs and priorities and
strengthening the performance of the Canadian economy, in
investment, innovation and trade.
As a government we intend to pursue all four pillars
aggressively. It is important that we understand what the social
security reform process is all about. It is not simply about
cutting government expenditures, although this is important,
and fiscal considerations cannot be ignored in all of our
deliberations.
It is also not simply an exercise in being more efficient
although the elimination of duplication, the reduction of
overhead and the co-ordination between the various levels of
government are also important.
It is not simply about creating a quick fix for an ailing system.
We are not prepared to simply tinker with the system so that it
can stagger forward for another three or four years. The time for
basic reform is upon us and we are prepared to meet and take up
the challenge.
What this process is really all about are jobs and security. It is
about helping Canadians in whatever socioeconomic position to
be gainfully employed and to provide their families with a life of
security within a system that we and future generations can
afford to maintain. Our social security reform process will
address three major issues which are critical to ensuring that
Canadians can provide the best form of security for themselves
and their families, a job with a fair wage.
6683
(1950)
In this respect the discussion paper which the minister tabled
yesterday deals with three areas which must be addressed if we
are to assist Canadians in achieving job security: First, ensuring
that our young people receive the necessary education to
compete in the job environment of the 21st century. Second, to
ensure that Canadians who are suffering from structural
unemployment are given the necessary training and other tools
to re-enter and maintain long term employment in the
workforce. Third, to ensure that the disincentives built into the
income security system are eliminated and that individuals are
encouraged to work rather than be given an incentive to stay at
home.
It is true that no one can promise that an education will
guarantee anyone a job. What we can guarantee, almost without
exception, is that without an education a person will have less of
a chance to obtain a job. To demonstrate this we merely need to
look at the statistics.
In the last three years job growth for university graduates has
increased 17 per cent. There has been no growth of jobs for high
school graduates. Most telling, there has been a 19 per cent
reduction in jobs for people who did not complete high school.
The discussions of how best to fund post-secondary education
to make sure that it is accessible to all Canadians and how to
make sure that is relevant and meaningful are important
objectives of this reform and forms an integral part of our
agenda for jobs.
We must provide Canadians who become unemployed the
necessary tools to rejoin the workforce. Forty years ago when
the unemployment insurance program came into being, most
unemployment was of a short term nature, usually caused by a
cyclical decrease in consumer demand which was restored as the
business cycle revolved. After periods of time which were
measured in months rather than years, individuals would be
recalled to their place of employment.
Unfortunately this is no longer the case in many instances.
There exists in Canada today a significant amount of structural
unemployment. People who are losing their jobs are doing so not
because of cyclical decline in demand but rather because the
jobs have disappeared permanently. We need to face up to this
reality and understand that not only do workers need to be
provided with income support, and they do, but also with tools
so they can adapt themselves to new jobs which are being
created.
These tools include better access into the support system;
provision of basic literacy and numeracy skills; training to assist
adaptation to new technology; on the job work experience to
allow employees to be more effective and incentives for hiring
unemployed workers. In this area we must ensure the
responsibility is shared by giving responsibility to
communities, local businesses, labour and educational groups
so that they, who best understand the needs of their local
community, can drive the process.
We must work at removing the disincentives for people who
are receiving income support from returning to the workforce.
The provinces must be given greater flexibility so they can meet
the needs and priorities in their regions. Child care needs to be
provided so that single mothers can return to the workforce.
Individuals must have the opportunity to obtain entry level jobs
with a gradual reduction in benefits and move away from the all
or nothing scenarios which presently exist.
We must end the cycle of child poverty so prevalent in single
parent families. We need to ensure that the federal child tax
benefit is made stronger and target it to where it is needed most.
As I said earlier, we need to work with the provinces to ensure
better child care and child development. We must work hard to
ensure that child poverty is not the result of irresponsible,
non-custodial parents who refuse to pay court ordered child
support.
The discussion paper tabled yesterday is not the final word.
The final word belongs to the Canadian people. Not only is the
government committed to receiving input from people across
Canada, but I am personally committed to hearing the concerns
and ideas the residents of my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka
have to provide.
(1955 )
On November 7 and 8 I will host a forum at the Rosseau
Community Centre to hear what my constituents have to say.
Their views, their letters and their presentations will come back
to Ottawa with me to be presented to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. The particular concerns
generated by a seasonal tourism economy, the challenges of
operating in rural Ontario will be brought forward to the
government and will be considered.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this
meaningful process. I am committed, along with my colleagues,
to ensuring that Canadians have the best social security system,
a stable job with a fair wage.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I really appreciated the fact that, in his speech, the hon.
member acknowledged that one of the goals of this social
program reform is spending cuts. The hon. member said that this
was not the only purpose of the reform, but one of its goals. This
only goes to confirm an article published in the Toronto Star, not
known for its animosity towards the Liberals. So, what they
mention must be a minimum figure. Some people say that the
federal government secretly plans to cut $7.5 billion in social
programs in the next five years. This means that major cuts are
really part of this reform.
6684
My question concerns rather another aspect of my
colleague's Speech. He said we must avoid overlapping. On
page 76 of the reform proposal, we are told all in the same page
about federal intervention in three different sectors: daycare,
education and welfare-which are all provincial jurisdictions.
How can the government reduce overlapping by increasing its
interventions in provincial jurisdictions?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, let me comment on the two
points that my hon. colleague made.
This review is going to be needed in any event because our
social policy programming needs to be updated. But if he thinks
that we are going to undertake a review without trying to find
cost efficiencies, without trying to deliver our programs in a
more efficient way, without trying to get better value for each
dollar that we spend, then he is totally wrong.
From my discussions with the Canadian people, from the
discussions with the people in my riding, from the telephone
calls and the mail I receive, Canadians have said two things.
They want a social security system that they can depend on, that
is going to last because it is going to be affordable for us and for
the future generation and that this social policy review must deal
with both of those issues.
As to dealing with specific areas of jurisdiction, I have
listened today, yesterday and the day before to the Bloc
Quebecois say over and over again that their major concern
about the social policy paper is not that Canadians or Quebecers
have more opportunity for employment. They have not told us
about how they think this social policy review can improve
social programs or their suggestions. What they have told us is
that their primary worry is jurisdiction.
I suspect that the individual in Quebec, just as is the
individual in Ontario, is not so much concerned about where
their cheque is coming from. They are concerned that there is a
social security safety net to protect them. They are not so much
concerned whether we have constitutional t's crossed and i's
dotted. They are concerned that we have efficient government
and a social program that can be delivered in a cost efficient
manner that will be there for themselves and for their children.
(2000 )
If the Bloc Quebecois wants to continue on and on to put this
in the terms of a jurisdictional question, I think that your
electorate in Quebec will say what this is about is to ensure that
we have a social safety net; what this is about is to ensure that we
have an opportunity to re-enter the job market; what this is
about is to give Canadians the best social program, a secure job
with a decent wage. That is what Canadians want.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to finally have an opportunity to speak to the social
programs review. I have waited with great anticipation for this
day since January 18 when His Excellency, the Governor
General, in the speech from the throne announced that the
government would initiate an action plan for major reform of the
social programs in Canada. Two weeks later, on January 31, the
Minister of Human Resources Development asked all members
of this House to work with the government to develop an action
plan for renewal of our social safety net.
After all that we expected an action plan. Nine months of
gestation and the elephant has given birth to a mouse. Now that
we are here we have no action plan but a discussion paper full of
maybes.
The minister says he will consult with Canadians. In phase
one the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
held consultations with interest groups, private citizens in
person and through the media of teleconferencing. Now the
committee is scheduled to embark on five weeks of face to face
consultation.
I had hoped that this would give us an opportunity to hear
from Canadians who do not represent the special interest groups
and whose inherent bias and sole mandate is to perpetuate their
own existence. The Government of Canada, the taxpayers of
Canada, is paying $4 million in intervener funding to interest
groups to prepare their presentations and no doubt we will hear
from some of the same interest groups that we subsidized to
testify in phase one.
The government has made it virtually impossible for ordinary
Canadians to prepare submissions because the deadline is
November 7. The real information, the technical papers, will not
even be available until late in October. Perhaps the minister
thinks that this is some kind of a Hallowe'en treat or maybe a
trick.
After many delays and much fanfare and many leaks, we are
left with a watered down series of questions that offers little
direction and no plan of action at all. It has been said that the
minister hopes to generate intelligent, informed discussion at
every dinner table in the nation. The premise is right on. We are
hoping that this reform would actually place all the social
programs on the table for discussion. We felt certain that the
minister would want to give Canadians an opportunity to
examine and challenge the principles on which existing social
programs are based so that informed discussions can take place
and decisions can be made.
To facilitate this discussion did the minister even give
Canadians the information they need to initiate informed
discussion? I do not think so. Is he trying to fool the people? He
thinks that perhaps if he fills them full of mumbo-jumbo, the
type that we heard here today in Question Period from him,
eventually people will leave the table and say ``I've had enough,
let government fix this mess''. He does not want Canadians, it
appears, to know the real truth about social programs.
6685
You can fool some of the people some of the time, or
something like that, but Canadians do not really know what
their future holds and they want to know. They need to know
so that they can plan for their future and their retirement years.
After they have paid their taxes will they have any money left?
Very likely they will not. They had better not count on the
Canada pension plan or old age assistance to sustain them in
their declining years because there will not be enough money
to go around. Today every dollar that is paid into the Canada
pension plan is paid out the other end to a current beneficiary.
Canadians want to know what their future holds and we
believe they have every right to know. Forewarned is forearmed.
The Reform party wants to ensure that Canadians are fully
informed so that they can make conscientious decisions about
their futures.
The Liberals set their target for deficit reduction at 3 per cent
of GDP.
(2005 )
If it is really serious about making this a reality the
government is left with few options: either a meaningful
reduction in spending or an increase in taxes or a combination of
the two. We do not have that information. It does not show up
anywhere in this paper. We think that is one of the first question
Canadians will want answered.
If young people want a payout from CPP the premiums that
they are paying in will have to double, triple or perhaps
quadruple before they reach retirement years. It will not take
that long. By the year 2010, about the time the baby boomers are
set to retire, government revenues will be totally consumed by
interest on the debt and by social program spending.
We know government has other financial commitments that
will have to be met as well. What will happen to the pension the
baby boomers thought they could rely on in the so-called golden
years? The gold in those years will be tarnished and there will
not even be any coppers traded for the necessities of life. I
believe that the best way to help Canadians and their families
prepare for their future and to fight poverty is to reduce the tax
burden.
In pre-World War II days when government entered into the
foray of income support, I am sure that no one ever dreamed it
would go this far into debt, this far into fostering a dependency
on government to provide for our well-being. For too long
people have believed that grants are gifts from the government.
Actually everyone knows we have to pay the taxes in first.
This government and its predecessors have given with one
hand while increasing taxation and taking with the other.
Canadians want to know what this government's agenda is. Is it
to protect those who cannot help themselves or is it income
redistribution? In this country we punish people for being
successful and we seem to reward those who are not.
Some will say that sounds pretty radical. Wait until you hear
this quote: ``We are not interested in paying able-bodied people
merely because they were not able to find work. We propose
social aid for those people who are unable to work because they
are crippled, aged or mentally ill''. Does that sound like a
radical statement? This is a quote from Tommy T.C. Douglas,
former CCF Premier of Saskatchewan, talking about social
assistance programs in his province. From that time to now we
have arrived at the place where we think we have to subsidize
everybody.
Those who have tinkered with the expansion of our social
programs over the last quarter century have lost track of the
target. In trying to help everybody the government has incurred
a massive debt that today has reached a whopping $533 billion.
This amounts to $18,000 for every man, woman and child in this
country. If we want to do anything about child poverty, I suggest
we do something about that $18,000 tax bill.
Past enlightened governments have allowed this country to
fall off the rails and now it is time to get it back on track. The
role of government in providing help must be redefined. If we
continue with the status quo we will not be able to help those
who are truly in need. It is imperative that we reinstate the
balance between public support and private responsibility. We
have allowed people to become reliant on government and now
the government is broke.
This document does not leave me with the impression that this
government is looking beyond the next election. There are
Canadians who truly need help. To ensure that they will be cared
for the government must immediately eliminate handouts to
corporations and interest groups and reform the members of
Parliament pension plan.
After all, how can we expect Canadians to embrace social
program reform if the government is not prepared to reform its
own pension plan? The Reform Party MPs have opted out of the
pension scheme but I notice that none of the other parties has
followed our lead.
As I said earlier, the minister asked this House to work with
the government to develop an action plan for the renewal of the
safety net. From what we have seen of the green paper, this no
action plan, he needs help.
I want to assure members that we will help wherever possible
to bring about real social reforms. In that vein I will be glad to
share with the members of the government what the Reform
Party believes. We believe that social programs should be
financially sustainable.
6686
(2010 )
We believe that social programs should be targeted to those
who are most in need. Social program delivery should be
decentralized and the family should be strengthened as the
primary caregiver in society.
The Reform Party is committed to real social program reform
and we believe that if the government follows these principles,
Canadians can have a plan for the future.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great intent to the member's comments. I must admit that I
do not exactly hear anything very positive. I heard it is not
working, that it is not right and the lead in was basically that the
government does not have a plan.
The government put out a plan, put out the framework for a
plan before us. The concept is to go back and consult with one's
constituents to get the input of Canadians in this process. It is
very important.
I hear the Reform people saying why do we not do this
tomorrow. The reality is that it has taken us 30 years to get here
now. It is not going to get fixed tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully
it can get fixed within a year.
The very important part of this is to get Canadians involved in
the process. I am conducting a social policy review in my riding
on October 23. I have used a householder and sent it out to
40,000 households in my riding to solicit all the possible support
and views and different concepts. General Motors is on the
panel, the CAW is on our panel. We have the chairman of
Durham College chairing it for us.
That is the kind of consultant method that we are going to. I
would like to ask the member what he is doing to bring this to the
people to get their ideas.
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, this idea of consultation I did
say in my remarks is good. When we do consultation over and
over again with the same groups of people, and we subsidize
them with taxpayers' money to prepare their reports and to bring
their remarks to our standing committee-we do this over and
over again-when does consultation become excessive? How
much consultation is enough consultation?
I submit that we have gone through the consultative process.
Sometime we have to start making decisions. If this government
is not prepared to make a decision in the first year or year and a
half of its mandate, it will be facing an election in the second
half of its mandate and then I suggest it will be even more
hesitant to make decisions than it is today.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, I am perplexed by what the member from the Reform
Party has said. I have always thought that one of its major points
as a party was that it wanted to listen to Canadians and to do it in
a very consistent manner.
The fact that Canadians were consulted from January 31 to
today is one phase of the consultation process. The hon. member
knows that what we would like to get from Canadians is a
reaction to the proposals for change in the green book as
outlined by the Government of Canada.
I am wondering if during this consultation he will also present
to his constituents the Reform Party position on cutting $15
billion from social programs and where exactly he will cut from.
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows
full well that the Reform Party has not said that our plan is to cut
$15 billion.
What we did say in a news conference is that the Liberal Party
has campaigned on a promise to get its deficit down to 3 per cent
of GDP. Three per cent of GDP is in the neighbourhood of $25
billion. The deficit today is $40 billion and the media and
perhaps even the minister did the arithmetic and came up with
the stunning conclusion that somehow their target rates meant
that the Reform Party was going to cut $15 billion out.
I have a pretty good imagination. I cannot imagine how they
came up with that.
(2015 )
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the
discussion paper on social policy review.
I wish to take a slightly different approach than has been taken
so far and concentrate on a particular section of the policy paper
that has been presented. I would like to indicate how clearly that
discussion paper misses the opportunity for leadership and new
thinking for a new economy and for a redirected social policy
program.
I recognize that the government has set for itself a major task
of tremendous significance that will affect our financial, social
and personal well-being in this country.
There is a desperate need to change our social policy. There is
a recognition in this particular paper that our economy has
become technology oriented and that it is critical for Canada to
find a way to capitalize on the technology of tomorrow.
How can we all benefit from this recognition? By recognizing
that the world is rapidly changing we have taken the first step in
making the transition toward a productive future. But it is only a
first step, a very, very tiny one. In real terms this means that the
workforce in Canada must change. This too is included in the
discussion paper.
Canada must develop a workforce that is well educated,
capable and skilled and above all that is primed to participate
and anticipate the changes that are coming with respect to the
economy in general, their specific jobs and to prepare
themselves for the transition that is about to come. A workforce
that has those characteristics will indeed be successful in
competition.
6687
It requires lifelong learning. Learning I believe is at the basis
of a dynamic economy. Only through education and ongoing
training of a workforce can that force be equipped to meet
market demands.
However, like all the other components in our economy
education itself is under tremendous stress. It has become
inefficient. It has become too expensive and it is failing the very
people it was designed to serve. Canadians are lagging behind,
no matter how well educated they are. They are not equipped to
tackle the jobs of the market requirements.
Canadians are paying the price for post-secondary education
that is out of date, a system that was designed primarily to serve
the needs of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We are in the 1990s.
Higher education must be reviewed and must change to reflect
today's requirements. That means universities, colleges and
technical institutes and other deliverers of educational services
and courses. Every avenue of education must be taken to be part
of the plan and must be utilized.
I pose this question to the House this evening. What should
the federal government's role be in post-secondary education?
In particular, how should post-secondary education be funded?
As an educator with 25 years experience and as a provincial
politician and now as a federal politician I have witnessed the
relationship between education and government in the
post-secondary process and throughout Canada. It is from this
point of view that I wish now to reflect upon one of the
government's proposals.
The proposal is to expand student loans. Student loans are not
a new idea in Canada. They have been used to finance education
for many years. As a result many graduates have racked up
substantial debts and upon graduation, despite the investment,
many of them cannot get jobs. The jobs they had and were well
paying and looked secure were not. Graduates are
underemployed on a part time basis and often on a very short
contract basis. Despite the investment in education through
student loans there has been no guarantee of employment for
graduates despite the fact they have been left with massive debts
and no way to repay them.
The key is jobs. There is some suggestion that maybe the
government should guarantee these loans. It does not help if the
loans cannot be paid back and it adds to the cost of government.
(2020 )
How serious is this problem? One might say that is not that big
a problem. In November 1992 the total default in education
debts or loans if you will was $1 billion. That is the equivalent of
100,000 students defaulting on a $10,000 loan. That is a
significant problem. Many students are not only deep in debt,
they are without a job and have very little to show for that debt
that they have incurred. Canada has very little to show for that
debt. It is unacceptable and it must change.
We are looking for a legitimate role for the federal
government in this kind of funding. Leading economists and
Canada's leading authority on educational finance or finance of
higher education, Dr. E. G. West of Carleton University in
Ottawa, says that what we need is a voucher system not a heavier
burden on the backs of our young people, a voucher system that
would see the federal government distribute its higher education
money to students themselves directly in the form of vouchers
that would be accepted by universities, colleges and technical
schools. These institutions in turn would convert those vouchers
into money by redeeming them with the federal government.
This voucher system is direct, single, simple, effective, flexible
and deals with the individual-talk about decentralization-a
legitimate approach for the funding of higher education at least
in part.
What are the advantages of such a system? There are many. In
the minds of my colleagues and those who are in authority, such
an arrangement would encourage healthy competition among
institutions to attract students. It would be a preferable
arrangement for students too because an arrangement like this
would enhance individual choice and make it an effective
choice. Students would have more leverage to seek out
institutions to meet their needs and the federal cost would be no
higher than it is today.
The voucher system would work better for students. It would
ensure a higher standard of post-secondary education through
competition and would cost the government no more than it
costs today.
The voucher system would do much more than that. It would
put into the hands of the students consumer power. The students
would decide what kind of program, who would deliver it and at
what price. It would recognize the diversity of choice of those
who seek to learn and those who provide the educational
services. It would allow the post-secondary education
institution to fine tune the system and like government itself,
avoid the expensive duplication and overlap that exists at the
present time.
Under this system students would benefit from institutions
competing for enrolment between themselves and the students
would feel strong and well about their particular decisions.
Would they make good decisions? I have dealt with many of
these students at the post-secondary level and the post-graduate
level and they are very capable of making decisions. They know
exactly what kind of program they want and need. If the
universities would listen, if some of these services that are
provided would listen to the needs and demands of the students
and have the wherewithal to give them money needed for their
education they would do so.
6688
Students are not only the young. There is a much larger
proportion of Canadians who are older adults in various age
groups who need further education. These too could be served
with this voucher system. It would create a large, political and
powerful force at the federal level for higher education if we
adopted this voucher system. That force would consist of
students, their husbands, their wives, their parents and all those
others who would benefit and participate in the
decision-making for higher education.
Advanced education would then compete on a much more
equal basis in terms of the power that they need so that
government supplies those services that we actually have to
have in our society.
Finally and most important, it could be expanded beyond
simply education to include the training programs under UI and
welfare instead of having the turf war that exists between the
various departments.
I strongly urge the government to think very seriously not
about expanding the loans to students but rather to institute a
voucher system and give the student consumer power.
(2025)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, the member
from the Reform Party has come to the same conclusion as I
have. He feels that Canadian students are too heavily indebted,
and that this indebtedness can create problems with respect to
post-secondary education. He also stated-and I think that we
must agree with him-that the key, which is sadly lacking in this
document, is employment.
While it is true that university students have a better chance at
finding a job than other people, many of them, even though
highly educated, have to take a master's degree because they are
unable to find work. Some of them even have to go on to their
doctorate, because they still cannot find a job, and that leads
them deep into debt.
The hon. member spoke of the many advantages to be derived
from the student voucher system he put forward, but he did not
say where he would get the money for it. His central argument
seems to be that he recognizes that the federal government has a
funding responsibility with respect to education. The minister's
discussion paper and the budget show that the federal
government is bent on reducing, and even backing out
completely from these cash transfers to provinces.
As he is a former provincial politician, I have another
question for him: What role, in his opinion, should the
provincial government play in education? He knows very well
that education, under the Canadian Constitution, is a provincial
area of responsibility. I would like some clarification on the
student vouchers he referred to. Where would the money come
from? Who would pay?
[English]
Mr. Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the
question. Perhaps I did not explain as clearly as I might have.
The intention here is that under the Established Programs
Financing Act cash is given to provinces from the federal
government. The intention here is that money be given in the
form of vouchers to students.
That is where the funding would come from. That is why there
is no increase in federal funding over what exists at the present
time. That is one point. The second point is in terms of
provincial recognition. Absolutely, education is the
responsibility of the provinces. This would allow that kind of
flexibility to be retained and recognized.
In fact the voucher system could be strengthened immensely
if the provinces would do that as well. Then the true freedom of
the individual can be expressed to meet the needs that should be
there. That will also increase the job opportunities for
graduates. Then the programs would be tailored to meet the
needs of the job market and at the same time the interests and
skills and particular aptitudes of the students.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, if it ain't
broke don't fix it. This is what I learned in my days of farming.
The social security system of this country is broken. It has been
broken for a long time. I would like to give one example of this
which occurred in my constituency office only last week.
A middle aged man came into my office and asked if we could
find him some money because the telephone company was going
to disconnect his phone. He had rolled up a debt of over $1,500.
He was drawing social assistance. Before that he was on
unemployment insurance. Before that he had been a federal
government civil servant.
When I asked what the moneys were for, if they were to find a
job, he told us that it was for telephone sex. What have we done
with our social system that actually allowed someone to think it
was possible that the taxpayers would pay for his perversion?
The social program spending dealt with by the Minister of
Human Resources Development's discussion paper is in the
amount of $38.7 billion which represents approximately 31.4
per cent of total federal government spending, excluding debt
servicing. Our deficit problems are symptoms of a country
living beyond its means. It would be nice to go on a foreign
holiday but we do not have the bus fare. An unpaid holiday is
what we have all been living.
6689
(2030)
These are the indiscretions of past governments but the
problem is now squarely before us today. There are those who
will argue to increase taxes. Canada's personal income tax is one
of the highest in the western world. At 53.5 per cent our top
marginal rate is only second to that of France. We can compare
this with 40 per cent in the United Kingdom and 32 per cent in
the United States.
Higher taxes actually produce less revenue as people attempt
to take their money and finally themselves to more friendly tax
environments. We only have to study the history of Argentina to
realize this was true. Taxation actually drove that country to
financial collapse.
In short, we have only one direction to go and that is in the
area of program expenditure reductions. The trick is to execute
this in a way that continues to shield those with genuine needs
but reward those who are able to bridge the gap to
self-maintenance. We must stop the except me philosophy. The
fact is that we are all in the soup together and it will need our
collective wills to solve these problems. Failure will be an
invitation to have others outside our borders decide them for us.
All is not bad in this process. Indeed there is a great
opportunity to retool the Canadian economy to make it
internationally competitive as well as allow Canadians to regain
control of their own affairs.
I would like to speak on three specific areas of reform. The
first is unemployment insurance. Instead of a short stopover for
displaced workers, the program has become for many a basis of
income support, over 40 per cent of regular users of the system.
This is not necessarily the fault of any one but it reflects that our
economy is changing. This is a symptom of what is known as
structural unemployment. We do not need bottle washers
because we have machines to do it. Some employers have
abused the plan by using it for work stoppages and all sorts of
reasons not to do with the original intent of the plan.
Financially the benefits of the program are one of the highest
in the western world. It has reduced the productivity of the
labour market. Why take that job when unemployment
insurance is better than wages, less day care, less travelling
costs, et cetera? Indeed Canada's productivity has been
declining even during the recession. Clearly this has to stop and
unemployment insurance must get back to its original function,
that is strictly insurance. We cannot ask the general taxpayer to
foot the bill for lower productivity.
Now I would like to address the area of child care. Much talk
has and will evolve over the concept of child poverty. When we
say this it conjures up images of children starving in the streets,
begging and so forth. I have witnessed this firsthand in Peru, in
Africa and even in Ireland. I have not witnessed it here in
Canada. May I be so bold as to suggest that child poverty is a
symptom of the mismanagement of family resources rather than
a lack of transfers by government.
I am heartened by a recent case in Thunder Bay where a single
woman with two children was able to save over $20,000 in two
years while living on social assistance. Personally I do not
believe that throwing more money at these situations will in fact
alleviate child poverty. It may even increase it as these families
will have less incentive to seek gainful employment which may
have resulted in a more responsible attitude toward child
rearing.
Finally I would like to address the area of post-secondary
education. Canada has established an assembly line approach to
higher education. Some statistics given regarding the need for
higher education are skewed, that is to say we have not properly
taken the time to consider what is the cause and what is the
effect. For instance, do employers not simply use education as a
method of screening job applicants? Does one really need a BA
to clean out parking meters? I suggest it may be a disadvantage.
This is not to say that we do not need a better educated job force,
but it calls into question the type and quality of education.
(2035)
Somewhere in the past we elected as a nation that we did not
want to get our hands dirty. We closed down technical schools.
We said that our children would all become doctors and lawyers.
Our universities are full to the brim with students in social
studies that have no more prospect of getting jobs than do high
school graduates.
John Smith in Port Perry sits in grade 10 hating and failing his
course in English and French literature. Maybe he will become
one of our dropout statistics. In reality John Smith would rather
be learning a trade, becoming an auto mechanic or other form of
technician. Many of our largest employers regularly bring in
trades from Europe because they cannot find them here.
In short, we need a more aggressive apprenticeship training
program. We must recognize that technical programs are just as
valid as and perhaps even more so than some of our academic
programs.
I wholeheartely support the concept of using vouchers for
post-secondary education. I would even hazard to take the
process one step further by weighing more heavily on providing
larger vouchers in support of science and technology as opposed
to other programs. This would result in a shift in the skills of our
labour force which would allow us to compete head on with the
emerging economies of southeast Asia and others. Sue and Sam
will need a greater focus toward job expectation than they have
had in the past.
In conclusion we have a lot of soul searching to do, but it is
also time for action. We must resist the thought that it is not our
problem. Canada can move forward toward prosperity in the
21st century but it must renew itself first.
6690
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, in his speech,
the member for Durham claimed that our system was ill. I have
to support his position in this regard. It is true that the system is
ill. Of course, we must have the same definition of what he
means by system. For us, it is the federal system. It is the one
which is now holding up the provinces, especially Quebec, with
its duplications, its entanglements and its various restrictions. It
is even said somewhere in the document that the authors feel
that the federalist system had been too strict in the past.
Tonight, certain comments I heard and the member's view
surprise me somewhat. Prime minister Campbell was defeated
in the last elections because, one night, she said on
television-and I remember it full well-that it would not be
appropriate to discuss spending cuts during an election
campaign. Later on, when cornered, she had to admit that there
would be cuts. A little pushed the same way, the current minister
told us before that the reform would not change the level.
What can be felt, now in this House, is that the Liberal Party is
seeking a new mandate to cut spending, which it has already
begun to do in any case.
I concur with the statement that our system is ill, but not with
the other comments of the member. According to him, some
people seen in the unemployment insurance office look happy to
be there. It is as though they are unemployed on purpose. He did
not say that, but he was speaking about regular claimants.
Later on, he spoke of some single women with children who
were able to put some money aside. I think this attitude is
completely depressing, even if I know that we must respect
everyone's freedom of expression in this House.
(2040)
On post-secondary education, he seems to think there are too
many students attending university and that these students
choose the wrong field of study. To reduce the number of wrong
choices, we should make some study programs less expensive
than others. I would like to have more details on this.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments. I suppose we can look at it in two different ways:
We can talk about discouragement or we can talk about
encouragement. I suppose I have a tendency to have a more
positive attitude to this and think we want to encourage.
I agree somewhat with the member. I do not believe it is the
duty of government to make those kinds of choices, but I believe
we as a nation need a better and higher technologically trained
labour force. I believe it is unjustified for governments simply
not to acknowledge the fact that we cannot continue to educate
people for jobs that do not exist. We must give our labour force
some guidance in the areas in which we think we are going to
evolve.
I noticed the member in his comments talked about fiscal
irresponsibility. I have often heard members of the Bloc talk
about this as if it were a federal problem. In fact deficits are
rampant throughout the western world. I would like to point out
the fact that the province of Quebec, by its own creation, created
a $70 billion deficit and, remarkably enough, 40 per cent of it is
financed outside not only the borders of Quebec but the borders
of Canada.
The province by itself has some significant problems to deal
with. They are not unique to the federal system by a long shot.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Madam
Speaker, I have been in Canada for very close to 34 years. I
started working when I was young in British Columbia, then I
worked in the province of Quebec, in Montreal. In those days,
the Canadian economy depended on the big traditional
industries, based on our natural resources.
Our society was almost exclusively white and Christian.
Drastic changes have taken place in the last 40 years, in Canada
as well as in all industrial societies. Because of those changes,
the present economic structure is totally different.
In fact, the whole of society has changed. Today's society is
not the one that I found when I arrived in Canada. Accordingly,
we must look to a sweeping reform of our entire social security
net which, in some areas, has been in place for the past 50 years.
[English]
Today in North America more people are working in the
computer industry than in the automobile, steel and heavy
industries combined. The software industry alone represents a
total output of $42 billion. More Canadians today are working in
the electronic industry than in pulp and paper, our biggest
industry to date. There are as many Albertans working in the
financial sector today as in oil and gas.
[Translation]
Today, more Quebecers are working in the health technology
industries than in textiles, which used to be Quebec's basic
industry. There are more Americans working in the film
industry today than there are in the entire automobile industry.
[English]
The tragedy of Canadian society, as indeed it is a tragedy of
every industrialized country today, is that our social
infrastructures, our services, have not kept up with the immense
changes in our economy over the last 35 years.
6691
The paradox is that there are jobs in the new industries but
these jobs cannot be filled because the skills do not match the
jobs that are open. There is a huge jobless pool of people who
cannot access available jobs in new industries because of the
lack of proper skills.
(2045)
I represent a riding in which a great number of high tech
industries are located, industries in communications, aerospace,
pharmaceuticals, software and others. I have spoken to many
company executives.
One company, which is highly prosperous and almost unique
in the world, exports 97 per cent of its products. This company
cannot find enough workers inside Canada to fill 50 per cent of
its demand. Of its skilled workforce 25 per cent come from
Quebec and 25 per cent come from the rest of Canada. It has to
import 50 per cent of its skilled workforce from England,
Germany, the United States and other places. This is not peculiar
to my riding. There are similar stories all across Canada in all
the new industries.
The reform we are talking about today is to empower
Canadians to keep pace in this new world in which sadly there is
no longer a place for school dropouts or people without suitable
training. If we compare our rate of school performance with that
of Germany, Japan, or Korea, of all the emerging countries
where skills are at a premium and are being used day by day, we
find ourselves sadly lacking.
That is why this reform is so important to us today. This
reform is almost a call to Canadians to take up the challenge, to
find in the reform an opportunity to reshape our collective skills
so as to enable our citizens, especially our younger ones, to find
a place in this very different yet very exciting world.
Today Canada will depend more and more on new
technologies and new sectors, including communications,
aerospace, broadcasting technologies, health technologies and
indeed, the environmental technology sector.
[Translation]
These are our new industries, our new challenges.
Tomorrow's opportunities await. And this is the attitude the
Minister of Human Resources Development would like to see us
adopt, one of taking responsibility for our actions, of discussing
tomorrow's challenges together, so that we can build a social
security system that will carry us into the 21st century.
In reviewing the options for the Axworthy reform, we have
the opportunity to think about what is at stake, to face today's
realities, to reflect on our 50-year old social security net, and to
give Canadians, our young people in particular, confidence and
dignity, in the knowledge that tomorrow's families will have
lasting jobs, jobs that will make them competitive in today's
competitive world.
This is what this reform is all about. The reform will most
certainly have a financial impact. We can no longer afford our
existing overly expensive social security net. We must think of
more creative, more innovative approaches: this is the goal the
minister, Mr. Axworthy, is trying to reach in his reform.
[English]
I hope this will give us all a chance to discuss in a constructive
spirit this essential need to reform our social security system so
as to make us competitive and give us the qualify of life for the
next century we all aspire to have.
(2050 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
hon. members once again that we do not use the names of
members of Parliament. We use their titles.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, this is quite a surprising speech on the part of the hon.
member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, given the fact that he
was a Minister in the Quebec National Assembly. I say a
surprising speech because he confirms, he finally recognizes the
failure of the federal government in the area of manpower
training. He says there are jobs by the hundreds of thousands in
Quebec that cannot be filled because there is a shortage of
skilled workers in specific areas.
However, the discussion paper we have here offers no
solutions to that shortage. If there is one topic on which all
Quebecers agree, it is no doubt manpower training. Quebec must
have jurisdiction in that area. The power to legislate on
manpower training must be given to the Quebec National
Assembly. Nothing in the government's handling of this issue,
nothing in this document gives any indication that that is likely
to happen. On the contrary, this project emphasizes
centralization in Ottawa and confirms the refusal to hand control
over to Quebec. This afternoon, while answering a question, the
Minister said that Ottawa was the boss on that issue and that
things would remain so.
Another thing. They say there are not enough skilled workers
but this reform increases tuition fees. Is this the way to go if you
are going to encourage people to get specialized training? Will
people be able to afford an education after this reform? No.
The member's speech is astonishing and I would like him to
explain where, in this document, in this reform, we can find
evidence of a willingness to decentralize?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I must say, before you
answer, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, that it is not customary to
wave documents about in this House.
6692
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, what we should do is make
a recording of the Bloc members' speeches and just play it over
and over. This way, there would be no need for Bloc members
to rise in the House after a speech. We could switch on the
recording. It is always the same old story: centralization and
the federal government are the root of all evil. Of course
Quebec has no responsibility at all for what happens. It is all
the federal government's fault. They make it sound as if once
Quebec is independent, all their problems will disappear like
magic and people will be trained for the jobs they will get in
all those specialized plants.
The social security reform proposed by the Minister of
Human Resources Development is an attempt to ensure that
many more people have access to the education system, training,
student loans and a one-stop system for manpower training. The
minister has said many times that he is open to any kind of
reform that provides for complementary input by the federal
government and the provincial government. Tabling this reform
paper as a set of proposals for consultation is a way to involve
people from all provinces, people across Canada, in a
constructive reform process.
For instance, in my own riding, I intend to conduct public
consultations on this proposal. I hope my Bloc colleagues will
do the same in their ridings and work on ways, not just to break
up Canada and separate Quebec from Canada, but to ensure that
people find their place in a community where there is work for
all. Anything but this endless refrain that centralization and
federalism are the root of all evil.
Nobody is talking about centralization. We are talking about
co-operative and constructive federalism, that will enable
people to find jobs. That is what they are looking for, not your
same old stories. You are all the same. It is always the same old
story. The words never change. You will never be satisfied. How
can you support a reform of the federal system if you want to
break up the federal system?
This is the reason for all your problems. It is the idea you have
that if you erect walls around you, it will be heaven on earth. But
this is not the way. Nowadays, in our competitive world, we
have to live together. Even Europeans are uniting to work
co-operatively.
Mr. Bellehumeur: In Quebec, we-
Mr. Lincoln: Sir, I did not interrupt when you had the floor.
You could at least extend the same courtesy to me. Your are
always harping on-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask that the hon.
member speak through the Chair. However, his time is up.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rosemont.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Madam Speaker, tonight,
I am convinced that the constituents of Rosemont are sure to
have made the good choice when they decided not to put their
confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada.
In October 1993, this party formed the new majority
government after an election campaign based entirely on the
theme of job creation. One year later, the Minister of Human
Resources Development finally tables a discussion paper which
was supposed to unveil a major aspect of this job creation
program. It is not yet an action plan, only a working paper for
consultation purposes.
In one year, this government managed to come up with two
documents: a budget announcing cuts tabled in February 1994
by the Minister of Finance and, yesterday, a discussion paper on
social program reform, which is also a document announcing
cuts instead of a proposal for job creation.
At this rate, this government will have produced seven or
eight papers during its mandate and will have only succeeded in
creating a few jobs for writers and for public consultation
facilitators. I am hardly exaggerating. Of course, the
government made a few decisions. What kind of decisions, you
will ask? Essentially, contract cancellations and closures.
This government cancelled the helicopter contract, but we are
still waiting for its defence conversion policy. This government
cancelled the privatization of Pearson airport, but we are still
waiting for its redevelopment plan for this airport. This
government shut down Atlantic coast fisheries, but we are still
waiting for an adequate compensation and retraining package
for fishermen. This government closed down the military
college in Saint-Jean, but we are still waiting for the economic
redeployment plan for the region.
The Minister of Transport announced that the federal
government was going to withdraw from local and regional
airports and that local and regional communities will have to
take over, otherwise they will be shut down. The National
Transportation Agency is still allowing hundreds of kilometres
of rail lines to be dismantled, but we are still waiting for the
position of the Liberal government on the HST.
Is the document that was tabled yesterday any different? Not
in the least. While we had been promised more jobs and more
security, we are getting less security and no jobs. After
promising education and training, this document is announcing
cuts in post-secondary education, bigger student loans and
higher tuition fees in colleges and universities.
Even if, by and large, the document is very vague, it contains
two specific proposals. This first is this-imagine: all workers
who use unemployment insurance three times in five years will
be declared chronically unemployed and practically treated like
welfare recipients. That is the new security proposed in the
Liberal Party's document.
6693
The second proposal is equally unacceptable. The federal
government is proposing to cut its share of funding for
universities and to use the money saved to encourage students
to borrow more, while forcing colleges and universities to raise
their tuition fees dramatically. That is the encouragement for
training and education the Liberal government gives us.
But where are the concrete job creation measures that were
promised throughout the election campaign? Incredible as it
may seem, they are non-existent.
(2100)
You can read the whole 89-page document. You can read it
and reread it; there is no proposal for job creation. How do you
explain such an about-face by a political party whose only
election slogan was job creation?
If one analyses the document-listen, I can try to provide an
explanation, which I think is in two parts. First, they are making
a reform because they have to. It is glaringly obvious, how
inefficient the federal government is. It is very clear that the
action taken by the federal government in occupational training
and job development is completely ineffective.
This paper explains how disastrous the federal government's
performance has been in terms of vocational training. And listen
to this, it says that the federal government's involvement in that
area will actually increase. Instead of withdrawing, as requested
by all Quebec stakeholders, from vocational training, an area in
which it admits having had disastrous results, the federal
government comes out and tells us it will cut funding, but
continue to impose its views not only on vocational training but
also on education in the future. That is completely absurd.
In the face of the failure of existing programs, there is no
doubt that reform is required. But the federal government,
which is responsible for this failure, decided on its own
authority that it will be in charge of the programs in the future.
This is as if, one morning, the last in the class decided to impose
upon everyone else his or her own training and education
programs. You think that is impossible? No, it is perfectly
possible. This kind of thing is possible in Canada because
Canada is a sovereign state and the Constitution of Canada is
interpreted by the Supreme Court, a court that always sways
towards the views of the federal government. That is what
sovereignty means in the Canadian context.
The federal government can make all the mistakes in the
world for decades and the Constitution gives it the right and the
power to keep at it in the future. Fortunately, as far as our future
is concerned in Quebec, we will soon have the choice of pulling
away from the sovereignty of the federal government with
respect to decisions that concern us and to affirm the
sovereignty of Quebec, so that we can handle our own affairs
ourselves.
This decision is urgently needed and you will understand
better when you read the second part of the explanation given in
this paper. As the old saying goes, it never rains but it pours.
The second explanation is just as dramatic.
Behind the grand-sounding headings of unemployment
insurance and employment development, you will find on page
23 of this paper most of the second part of the explanation,
which relates to Canada's public finances.
After cutting $2.4 billion from unemployment insurance this
year, the government confirms that spending on social
assistance and post-secondary education in 1996-97 must be
reduced to 1993-94 levels and can be no higher in the following
years. Expenditures will never be allowed to exceed 1993-94
levels.
Worse yet, the paper confirms that other cuts will be included
in the next budget. All those who are familiar with public
finance management know that the federal government's budget
measures are similar to those imposed by the International
Monetary Fund on countries that will soon no longer be able to
pay off their debts. To get out of the financial abyss it threw
itself into, the federal government is trying to pass the buck to
the provinces and to individual Canadians while continuing to
impose its own programs and priorities.
The Bloc Quebecois is aware of the disastrous state of federal
public finances. That is why, since we were elected to the House,
we have been calling for a full, open and public review of all
federal government spending. We are demanding a full, open
and public review of the federal government's role so that
responsibilities and taxes can go to the level of government that
can do the best and most efficient job. We are ready to act now.
We are ready for a comprehensive overhaul of a federal system
that is driving us straight into bankruptcy.
After a year in office, the federal government has given us
contract cancellations, closures, cutbacks and discussion
papers.
(2105)
In the weeks to come, Quebecers will be able to compare the
federal government's inactivity with the aggressive job creation
measures already being taken by Mr. Parizeau's government. I
am convinced that the vast majority of them will realize that
sovereignty means being served by a government which can get
us out of the hole in which the federal government put us, before
it is too late. I am convinced that Quebecers-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but your time
is up. On comments, the hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, the experience
of my colleague comes through his comments and the way he
resumed the whole situation. He ran out of time a little bit
6694
towards the end. So, I would like him to elaborate on what he
was saying at the end of his speech, but first I would like him to
comment on the level of responsiveness shown by the Liberal
government. He has more experience as a member of this House
than I have. To his knowledge, have Reform members ever been
forced before to fill in the seats of Liberal members?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. Members do not
refer in this House to empty seats left by any party. I would ask
the hon. member to answer only to the first question put to him.
Mr. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I understand that rules must
be followed, but I also understand that considering what is
happening here tonight, sovereignty would be a lot easier for
Quebecers to support, since this document that was tabled
mentions jobs and growth in its title only. There is nothing in all
its 102 pages on job creation and as for the rest, I think my
colleague have already described it.
It is clear that we in Quebec will soon take charge of our future
and say yes to our sovereignty. And the Reform members now
present in this House-if we cannot talk about the members who
are not here, we can at least talk about those who are in the
House. I know that Canada is-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am clearly under the
impression that a certain member is making fun of the Speaker
and I do not like it. I said we can never refer to absent members.
Members of all parties have to be away sometimes. Resuming
debate. The hon. member for Laval-Centre.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre):
Madam Speaker, it is obvious that in unveiling the draft of his
reform of social programs, the Minister of ``Curtailment of
Human Resources'' created social insecurity in today's Canada
and tomorrow's Quebec.
That insecurity hits the unemployed, students, young people
looking for jobs, low-income families, single-parent families,
in short, all the have-nots in society. When you know what this
far-reaching reform proposal is all about, there is no doubt that
its first objective can be summarized in one word: cuts.
Furthermore, it is clear that the first victims of these cuts will
be the people in our society who are least able to bear them. In an
effort to save the Canadian boat from sinking, the Liberal
government will throw the poor, the disadvantaged and the
unemployed over board. Among the poor in our society, women
and children will undoubtedly be the designated victims of this
big cleanup.
This government, which loudly professes its firm
commitment to help children, is very careful not to recognize
the paradox inherent to the present review of the social security
program. Child poverty cannot be isolated from poverty of
Canadian and Quebec families. In its 1993 report, the Canadian
Action Committee on the Status of Women showed that 62 per
cent of one-parent families headed by a woman were living
under the poverty level.
For those families, more than any other family, poverty is a
day to day reality. If we want to get rid of the spectre of poverty,
it is the economic status of women that we must resolve.
(2110)
In that context how can this government justify cutting $7.5
billion in social security without making his credo of the
necessary cost effectiveness of the Canadian social security
system? The opposition between the statements and the
intentions of the Liberal government are blatant.
The following example proves it. One of the goals of the
reform is to increase the economic security of Canadians. In the
documents tabled by the minister, the government recognizes
that the best way to tackle child poverty is to guarantee jobs to
parents. Yet, there is not even an iota about job creation in the
document.
Mrs. Françoise David, president of the Fédération des
femmes du Québec said: ``Is it not cynical on the part of that
government to pretend that it wants to eliminate child poverty
while saying absolutely nothing about job creation for
parents?'' Empty words and vague propositions is how the
government sweetens the pill for the citizens of this country. A
few examples will suffice.
The report contains a plan to increase child tax benefits for
low-income families. The plan does not consider the impact of
those changes on middle-class families who will probably bear
the burden.
Mrs. Madeleine Bouvier, of the Fédération québécoise des
familles à parent unique, denounces eloquently the
shamelessness with which middle-class citizens, who are more
and more crippled, are asked to help the government in
assuming its responsibilities. Once more the government vision
is out of focus: How can you pretend that you are helping
children living in poverty when you weaken the social safety
net? Clearly, neither Canada nor Quebec will fall for that.
The real agenda of the government is getting clearer by the
day, suffice it to look at the reform proposals for unemployment
insurance. I am referring in particular to the principle of family
income to determine the right to UI payments.
If the spouse-understand husband-earns $50,000, his wife
will not be eligible for unemployment insurance.
Gérald Larose, president of the CNTU, does not mince his
words. To him, it is clear that this principle is directed towards
women, since their salaries are lower than the salaries of men.
How ironic that the only tax proposed in this reform project is
directed towards women!
6695
To the fund you shall contribute
Though no benefit will you see
For your husband still retains control
Thanks Mr. Axworthy.
Not only is it frightening to see how this government is
getting ready to destroy our social security system, but it is just
as frightening to discover the tactics it has perfected to save our
ailing federalism. Throughout this document, the Liberal
government's intentions are clear: it wants to get into areas
under provincial jurisdiction. And all excuses are valid. Child
care is a good example.
While the minister recognizes the responsibility of provincial
governments with regard to the definition and management of
child care services, he explains in the same breath his clever
participation in this area: to give funding, of course, as long as
this funding is tied to national standards. I know that Quebec
will not be fooled by such a deal, and I am convinced that the
provinces will certainly not be taken in so easily.
Here is another example of federal incursions into provincial
areas of jurisdiction, and I mean post-secondary education. The
tidy $2.6 billion cut into transfer payments in that area will have
an enormous impact, as much on students as on colleges and
universities.
The provinces will have no choice but to increase their
deficits or accept the erosion of their education systems. For
universities, there will only be one solution: to increase tuition
fees. Quebec university student associations are against these
reforms, because they fear that tuition fees might increase to
some $8,000 a year.
(2115)
The federal solution in this case is simple: you have only to
make more loans available for students. Here again, the solution
is unacceptable, and the government knows full well that
imposing the debt burden on our young people is untenable.
Such an option will discourage many of them from attending
university. How can we explain that, on the one hand, we praise
the merits of learning while, on the other, we do not hesitate to
charge prohibitive fees for access to education?
This leads me to make a few comments on another element of
reform. I want to talk about the government's intention to
promote on the job training for UI recipients.
In its analysis, the government recognizes the need to reduce
overlap between the two levels of government. That intent is
part and parcel of the myths of federalism. We know that only
sovereignty will allow Quebec to eliminate overlap and waste.
Obviously the government of Canada does not share this
outlook.
The reform's central theme is ``Jobs and Growth''. We thank
the Liberals for having targeted the two big failures of our
system. But job creation and economic growth are sadly missing
from the paper published yesterday. A better title would have
been ``Cuts and Decline''.
I wonder how, in this country, one is expected to find a job
when there are none.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker and colleagues, it would appear we are coming to the
end of a fairly long day. It has been interesting as this debate has
unfolded because most of the comments of our colleagues from
the Bloc have to do with the fact that: ``There are some things
that could be improved in this package but it could be improved
a lot more if we did it. So why not let us do it and we will do it
better than you anyway''.
The Liberal platform is ``This is really just a discussion paper.
We have not really thought anything out but by the way it is
going to be finished in about a month and this consultation that
is going on across the land really means something. Yes, we are
going to have a 1-800 number but we do not have it yet. By the
way we are going to change the way the whole country works
and we will let you know how we are going to do it as soon as we
figure it out. We are going to study it some more and hopefully
we will not have to make any decisions that could embarrass
anybody''.
By and large we are saying: ``It is a few cautious steps in the
right direction but if you are going to do it for heaven's sakes do
it and get on with it. If we are going to repair our country, we
cannot play at it any more. We really have to start getting serious
about it and do it''.
There is one thing all of us here as parliamentarians probably
share regardless of the party we represent. That is genuinely if
we did not care about our children and about making a better
country and a country of opportunity for our children, we would
not be here. We would not be here as members of the Reform
Party, members of the Bloc or the Liberal Party. We would not be
here. We are here for the children, the younger generation.
Perhaps if we looked at it from that perspective we could see
whether or not this is at least a step in the right direction.
First, we have an aging population in Canada. That is not news
to anybody. In 1994 right now 12 per cent of Canadians are over
65 years of age. In 16 years over 25 per cent of Canadians will be
over 65 years of age. Our median age is 34 and we are aging
fairly rapidly. There will be fewer consumers in the market,
fewer taxpayers, higher taxes, more pensions to pay and
probably a diminishing amount of money to do it.
(2120 )
At the same time, we have increasing demands on poverty and
children. Now we have to spend a whole lot more money on
young people in order to equip them so that they can become
productive in later years. That is right into post-secondary
education.
6696
I did not even finish high school and yet I was able to go
along quite well and do fairly well. So did many people of my
generation but the nature of work has changed dramatically.
As we all know work is now very much a cerebral thing. Work
is determined by brainpower and not by brawn. We are going to
have to make sure that we put a foundation together that allows
us to invest more in students and more in education because that
is the only way we as an economy are going to get a return on the
investment.
We have heard a good deal here today about the travails of
people born into poverty or into into two or three generations of
welfare families. However we have not heard a lot about the
success that comes from families.
Why is it that sometimes in a family with very modest means
the children can grow up and do very well and be quite
successful? Sometimes in families of more modest means or of
means much more substantial, children do not do as well as kids
who grew up in poverty.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. I wonder if the member realized that I had
called for questions and comments and then called her riding.
Would the hon. member for Laval Centre care to comment?
Then he can pick up on his time for debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, Madam Speaker, I wish to
react. I listened to my colleague, and he said, of course, that we
argued that if we ran our own affairs, it would probably be easier
for us to solve our economic problems.
I would like to remind my colleague that running a small
house is always a lot easier that running a big one. We can see
the problems more clearly and we have fewer constraints of all
kinds.
I invite my colleague to reflect on that important factor in our
big federal system and I am sure that if he has a small house, it is
very well managed.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my hon.
colleague. I was so keen to wrap this up and get home, I just lost
myself. I am sure that hon. colleagues probably felt much the
same. In any event, we were talking about these children.
Why is it that children from modest means sometimes do very
well and children that have lots do very poorly? Some of that has
to do with nurturing. All of it has to do with nurturing. If one is
wondering what the difference is between perhaps kids who are
doing better than kids who do not do so well, it has a lot to do
with encouragement from family and friends. It has a lot to do
with having a sense of self worth and a sense of confidence and
optimism. It has a lot to do with the sense of opportunity.
Our kids grow up in an environment where we are saying to
them that this is a land of opportunity. We are people of
opportunity. Our opportunity and what we can do in our life is
very largely determined by what we think we can do in our lives.
We can if we think we can. These are all the kinds of things that
we can only achieve if we can achieve it within an atmosphere
that values initiative, that values reward, that values the kinds of
things that built our country in the first place.
(2125 )
A lot of things go into making a family and making a better
life for our children. We all recognize that there are single parent
families. We know that it is far more difficult in a single family
environment to raise children and give them the kind of
nurturing necessary because usually when the parent arrives
home he or she is so tired that the last thing in the world he or she
can do is think of all this nurturing. We understand and know
that.
Therefore, anything that can be done in this social reform that
can be aimed at giving children a sense of security and
opportunity and the parents a feeling that they are not doing it
alone is going to reward us as a society tremendously.
We also need to make one other very important consideration,
in my opinion, in order for this new Canada to work. When
people work and make an effort in society they need to be
rewarded.
I just got off the phone with my ex-wife who, as a single
parent, has done a great job in raising our son. He is just about
finished high school. She was saying to me: ``Look, I just got a
bill from the tax department. I have to come up with another
$1,800 on top of everything else I am paying. I don't have it and
it is driving me crazy. Every time I think I am starting to get out
of the glue, the taxes go up''.
How on earth can we, as a country, continue to spend so much
and put such a tax burden on everybody at all income levels?
Everybody is crushed by this tax burden. The tax burden is there
because we have been spending beyond our means for years and
years.
That is why it is so absolutely important that we get this under
control. It is going to hurt. We know it is going to hurt but it
absolutely must be done. If we have the wherewithal, if we have
the courage and the fortitude, we should be able to make a much
brighter future for the children who are going to be coming in
the next generation. That is where our focus should be. If we do
that as a Parliament we will be rewarded for it.
6697
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I cannot resist
such an invitation.
I listened carefully to the part of the hon. member's speech
where he alluded to the fact that if we are all here in this House,
it is particularly for our children, and it is very true for me. I will
remind you of something which concerns me. My hon. colleague
gave personal details, so I can do it too.
Last year, on November 15, when I took my oath in this
House, I did it with my grand-daughter. It is quite clear that I sit
as a member in this House because I have faith in young people
and children and because I believe Quebec will give them the
society they deserve.
If my colleagues discussed this reform proposal today, it is
precisely because they have faith in young people, and feel a
responsibility towards them.
I guess I am closing the debate or almost. This is amazing.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 9.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.30 p.m.)