Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the following motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development:
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.
I believe the discussion paper on improving social security in Canada, tabled by the minister some weeks ago in the House, is a very welcome and courageous document. As with all initiatives that involve courage there is the potential for controversy and for misrepresentation. Certainly we have seen a fair amount of both since the issuance of the discussion paper.
I am not surprised by that. Indeed I would be disappointed if there were not such controversy and I would certainly be surprised if there were not some misrepresentation. It is the nature of our system of government that for every point of view there is a counter point of view. It is the nature of the way things get done in the Chamber that very often people who choose to take an opposing point of view are not hampered by the facts in some cases. They tend to do a bit of fearmongering and create a whole lot of what if scenarios: Does the government mean to do this or does it mean to do that?
I am not surprised by the misrepresentation and indeed I welcome the controversy. The minister and the government have wanted a full scale discussion on this issue and that presumes a discussion of the facts in play.
What I like about the discussion paper is that it raises a series of questions. Do we want this? Do we want that? They are questions. The standing committee is now travelling around the country to canvass the views of Canadians and to invite Canadians who cannot appear before the committee by reason of distance, time or whatever to send their views. I repeat the invitation to send their views to the committee and to their respective members of Parliament but particularly to the committee. As sure as night follows day there will be changes in the social security package as we know it in Canada. There has to be changes.
One of the reasons there has to be changes is that the present system was put in place so long ago that in the intervening time there have been new demands and new realities. Another reason change is needed is that no matter how tightly the rules are written there is always potential for abuse. I could indicate, as could many members of Parliament, many specific examples of where a particular package within the social security network has been abused.
That must never be an argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Unemployment insurance is a good system. It has served us well. Have there been abuses? My friend from Elk Island is probably in the category to which I just made reference. He would probably be leading the charge. He would be the pied piper of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Judging by his reaction in the House at this moment, he would be the kind of person who would want to get rid of the whole system. I am not one of those. That is where he and I differ.
There have been abuses in the UI system; I can document many hundreds of them. The abuses need to be corrected but the basic premise remains. The basic premise is that there are people who need to be assisted financially from one work opportunity to the next one. That is the basic premise of the UI system and we cannot lose sight of that. Nor can we lose sight of the abuses. That is one of the reasons this discussion paper is before us right now.
I could refer to other programs. There are abuses of any program embraced by the social security net, but for each of those programs there is a basic premise. For example, are there people who need an old age supplement? Yes, there are and I can give a list of many tens of thousands of them who need it.
With reference to what my friend from Gander-Grand Falls was saying a few days ago, was it ever intended that the old age security program should help people who already net several million dollars a year to get some more millions, some more dollars? No. Was it ever intended that 2,340 millionaires in this country should be able to draw unemployment insurance and benefit therefrom in tax terms? No, but that is happening. Now what is the solution?
There are two possible solutions, I suppose, theoretically. There is a sure way of guaranteeing that not one of these 2,340 people draw UI ever again. Wipe out the system. Wipe the system out completely and you will have guaranteed that none of them ever draw it because it will not be there to draw on. But what will you have done in the meantime? You will have ignored the basic premise of the program, the basic reason for the program in the first place: To help those who genuinely have financial need to get from one work opportunity to the next work opportunity.
With respect to unemployment insurance, old age security, medicare, university tuition, transfer payments, let us not lose sight of what their basic raison d'être was in the first place, the basic reason for putting them in place.
There is going to be and there is already a very wide debate. We saw an aspect of it yesterday here in front of the Parliament Buildings when many thousands of university students came to the Hill. I for one was glad to see them there. It is part of the debate that must go on. It must be an informed debate. I hear and I read in the papers a lot of information, a lot of misinformation, a lot of fear mongering. No matter what you attempt to do as a
public policy maker or as government, the NIMBY factor immediately comes into play. NIMBY, not in my back yard.
Any Canadian, any taxpayer anywhere in the world will respond to the following set of questions in the following way: Do you want to improve roads? Yes. Do you want to pay for them? No. It is the nature of how politics is done in democracies around the world. Do you want change? Yes. Do you want it to cost you? No. NIMBY. Do it by all means, politicians, please do it, but do not do it in my backyard. Do not affect me adversely.
Well budgeting in government is like a zero sum. Again, as soon as you spend it somewhere you have to take it from somewhere else.
So I say to university students, I say to unemployment insurance recipients, I say to old age pensioners, I say to recipients of medicare, I say to all of them out there including those of them who are my constituents: If you want change you are going to have to accept a basic fact of life. Change will mean improvements in some areas from your perspective but a less adequate measure in other areas from your perspective. Everybody sees it from his or her own perspective.
If you want the status quo, we can just tear up this little green book and we can allow the abuses to go on, allow the millionaires to continue receiving their unemployment insurance. We can allow that to go on, but that would be unthinkable. Therefore we have taken the other route as a government of which I am a supporter of saying that changes are needed but before we trigger those changes let us see what kind of changes you have in mind.
That is why we are having quite a far reaching consultation with the Canadian people. I have been encouraged by the kinds of letters I get, the kinds of spontaneous dialogue I encounter in airports and elsewhere around this country. I have been quite encouraged. But do not for a moment make the assumption that the vested interests are going to allow that dialogue to continue unfettered. There are vested interests.
If for example the government contemplates a change in a funding formula for various organizations around this country, the paid staff in that organization immediately says: "What does this mean for my job? If the subsidy from government is less or wiped out altogether, what does it mean for my job?"
Understand that we are talking about a discussion paper. Nobody has said that we are going to do this, this and this. The government through the Minister of Human Resources Development has said: "Here are some questions about what could be done. Canadians, what do you think?"
Let us go back to the organization I was talking about. The guy or the girl sitting behind a desk in a job that is funded by a government subsidy says: "Is it not possible that if they change the system there might be less money flowing to this organization? Therefore, my welfare, my livelihood, my pay, my job might be at stake". It does not take a nuclear scientist to figure out that the next thought that person may well have is: "How can I stop that from happening? I could mobilize a great rally. I could mobilize some letter writing".
Why has he or she done it in that example? Is it because he or she does not think there is a need for change? No. It has been done for the NIMBY reason: Not in my backyard; do not adversely affect me; however good your intentions, however good this program will serve the country, do not do it because it might affect my pocketbook.
Is there controversy? Oh yes, there is lots of controversy. Will there be more? Yes, I certainly hope there will be a lot more. Because at the end of the day when the smoke has cleared, everyone will see that this government will bring in a social security reform package which reflects the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast. Will everybody be happy? I doubt that very much. However I sincerely believe that most of them will be happy if they honestly engage in the process along the way, if they ignore the fear mongers, read the document themselves and respond to the document themselves.
I have some concerns about the process. I hope this does not fall into the category of the fear mongering I have just castigated. I subscribe to the view that what is in this document is basically a series of questions. However you would need to be deaf, dumb, blind and everything else not to realize there are some implied policy directions in this document.
One relates to the issue of university tuition. The government has not said it is going to do it, but it certainly has wondered out loud as to whether that is the route to go. Whether it goes that route or not depends on what Canadians say about the issue in the next few weeks.
The government has wondered out loud about seasonal workers versus workers who only have occasion to tap into unemployment insurance benefits spasmodically and infrequently. I have a very decided view on that issue.
Let us take an example of two brothers or sisters who are doing the same job. They are both carpenters driving nails and building the same office building in Toronto or St. John's. They both work for 18 or 19 weeks and both get laid off. Then UI says to one: "You came straight to this job from another job out in Cold Lake, Alberta where you worked for six years. You have no record of being unemployed over the last six or eight years so you are going to get a certain rate of remuneration or benefit while you are looking for work". However UI says to the other brother: "Before your 18 weeks, you were out of work for two
or three months. It was through no fault of your own mind you. It was not because you are lazy because you are not, but because you could not find work. However we are going to pay you a lesser rate".
Forget Liberalism, forget Reformism, forget Blocism. Let us talk another theology called fairness. Let us talk about basic fairness and another theology called basic common sense. The two brothers having worked the same amount of time driving the same kind of nails and getting the same rate of pay receive different UI payments. Who can buy the more groceries? That is the issue.
Remember that UI was put in place in the first instance to help tide a person over from one work opportunity to the next work opportunity. If in the process we say to a person who through no fault of his own has had fewer work opportunities that we are going to give him less money to buy the groceries to get him to the next work opportunity, that comes down to not a matter of political ideology, but to a basic matter of fairness. It is blatantly unfair to contemplate that approach. That is the kind of feedback I am getting and I expect others are getting too.
If it is a matter of deficit reduction, if it is a matter of having the UI fund live within its means, there is another way to fix that. The way to do it is not through unfairness. Instead of paying that fellow that rate and that other person another rate let us just equalize it. We may have to pay one fellow a bit less and the other fellow a bit more. It is not a matter of dollars here. We are not talking overall costs. We are talking another issue. We are talking about whether we believe as parliamentarians in a system that is fair. I can tell this House that I do and I will oppose any suggestion that would treat Canadians unfairly.
I have just given one quick example of where my eyes are open in case the need arises to have them open on that issue. Lest some colleagues who just joined us got bogged down in my examples, let me remind all concerned, including the people outside the House who may be watching, that the Minister of Human Resources Development put down a motion that the House take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming reform of social security programs and take note of the views expressed by Canadians.
I spent most of my time on the latter issue. I believe the success of this process or its failure will be determined largely by the degree to which we give Canadians an opportunity to say what they think of the proposals, say what their answers are to the questions and the degree to which we listen to that feedback.
