Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I engage in very extensive consultation in my riding. I take great pride in representing the views of my constituents.

Talking about free votes, I have not noticed too many people voting against their own parties; everybody stands at the same time. Let us put the rhetoric aside for a second and address the reality of the fact that the Reform Party operates more or less like any other traditional party.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon. member said. I have a bit of a problem with some of the comments he made vis-à-vis federal-provincial relations.

If the hon. member takes some time to read the program as outlined by the federal government, he will see that we have a very caring federal government which is reaching out to the provinces in a number of ways.

We have a federal proposal dealing with the management and planning of the labour market, a single window approach which I am sure the hon. member would like to support in the province of Quebec, to make our system more efficient and to avoid the waste and duplication that occur in various programs we deal with as federal and provincial governments.

On the issue of fiscal parameters, the hon. member should read that section once again. It is in the green paper. It is quite clear. We spoke about it in the last budget. The hon. member knows about the $2.4 billion that we cut from UI. That is in here. The government was elected on a commitment to reach 3 per cent of the GDP deficit reduction target. That is in this book.

We are being extremely upfront with Canadians. In reference to job creation, I find it quite ironic that we have created over 275,000 jobs. Nothing illustrates more the success of the government than what we have been able to do in the riding of the official opposition critic of human resources development. When she came into office in October the unemployment rate in her riding was 12.3 per cent. I am happy to report to the House of Commons that the unemployment rate in her riding is now 9.1 per cent. I do not hear members of the Bloc Quebecois congratulating us on such initiatives, and may I add that members on that side rise in the House day in and day out.

When we look at job growth the province of Quebec is number two in Canada. That speaks to the type of programs the government has initiated in bringing about what we refer to as positive change in the lives of the people of Quebec.

On the issue of the general philosophical thrust of the government, when we look at legislation that has gone through the House already; when we look at the fact that our Canada student loans legislation, which was approved by the House, has a section that deals with special opportunity grants for disabled Canadians, for women who are pursuing doctoral studies, for high need students, and for people who come from lower incomes; and when we look at the whole notion of deferred grants where students graduating with debt loads of $22,000 are seeing them reduced by $6,000 by the federal government, it speaks to the spirit in which we operate.

Let us also look at the unemployment insurance changes we made in the last budget. Low income unemployed Canadians with dependants are receiving the highest possible benefit rate of 60 per cent; 27,000 people have benefited from that change.

For the life of me I do not know where the hon. member has been in the past few months. We have moved very quickly since the October 25 election when we received an overwhelming mandate from the people of Canada on legislation that speaks to improving the quality of life of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including those in the province of Quebec.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

It is worth debating, and that is why the government has placed it in the discussion paper.

The second approach to UI reform does not distinguish between occasional and frequent users. It adjusts the eligibility requirements or the benefits available to all claimants. This involves increasing the time a person must work to get benefits, reducing the length of time that people can draw UI benefits, or lowering the amount a claimant receives.

This approach could save money which might be re-invested in employment services. However, I feel it does not in itself address the real problems of people who have trouble getting and keeping work. Under either approach we should consider the needs of workers in non-standard employment.

More people today work in part time or temporary jobs, or have more than one job. Also there are more self-employed people. Many are not fully covered by unemployment insurance. Some are excluded entirely from UI. If the current trends continue many of these kinds of employment will not be non-standard for long, they will set new standards. If the UI program is going to stay in touch with the needs of Canadians we will have to start thinking about where the new kinds of jobs can fit in.

The discussion paper talks about child care. It talks about restructuring and modernizing Canada's social security system. Many questions need to be answered. I ask Canadians, members of Parliament who will be holding town hall meetings, Canadians whom I think should be sitting around their kitchen tables discussing these key issues, to participate in this historic debate so that we can bring about positive change to the lives of our people.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Is it worth debating?

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources Development and this government for taking on a very important initiative. It is an initiative of historical proportions and is extremely important for this generation of Canadians as we deal with changing dynamics and the changing configuration of the Canadian economy.

If there is one thing that is constant about our society, it is change. If we look at the social, technological and economic changes that have occurred over the past 30 years, it would follow logically that our social programs which were initiated many years ago need to be altered to better deal with the present reality.

Our social programs touch every single individual who resides in this country. It is about the people in this Chamber. It is about our neighbours. It is about our friends. It is about this country's children. It is about the young people who today are struggling to get that very first important job, to reach that milestone of getting the type of training they require.

Underneath this change and new configuration there is a very simple notion, a simple premise which ties all the issues together. The best form of security for Canadians comes from having a job. That premise underlies every part of this discussion paper.

Canadians want to work not only for economic security but for the sense of purpose and dignity that work provides. The Catholic Children's Aid Society in Toronto expressed this point very well in its submission to the parliamentary standing committee earlier this year. It said that people receive meaning and a sense of who they are from their work. Their well-being, social involvement and contributions are defined by their work. That is what social security reform is all about.

If the best form of security is a job, then our social programs should help people get jobs. Unemployment insurance should really be employment insurance, a springboard to launch people back into the workforce. Employment programs should be measured by one simple criterion: Do they help people get jobs?

Social assistance should help people find jobs, not hinder them. It should provide support where it is needed, but focus on helping people gain independence. That is not the way the system works now. For too many people it does just the opposite, making it harder for people to gain that independence, to access training. For too many people the system gets things backward.

This debate is about addressing the real challenges and real problems of real people throughout this country.

In a letter to the Minister of Human Resources Development a divorced mother of two writes about how she tried to get off welfare and how the system abandoned her as a result. She says: "It is very backward that I had to quit my job to provide better for my family".

A young man writes about his pride in staying off UI by taking short term jobs in his desire to improve his job prospects through training, training that he cannot afford unless he quits work and gets UI benefits. He comments: "The price of values is extremely high under the present system". How in heaven's name can we motivate youth with things as they are?

An unemployed worker writes about the bureaucratic red tape that has delayed the training he needs while his UI benefits run out and his life savings are depleted.

A young woman who lost her job writes about programs that seem irrelevant and ineffective. After a year in the system she finds herself no closer to finding a job than the day she started.

A disabled athlete writes with enthusiasm about his plans to get off welfare and start his own business. He expresses his frustration with the welfare rules that stop him from raising the capital he needs to get the business started.

Is the status quo working for these people? Is the system working for these people? Or is the system that is supposed to help these people actually denying them their rightful opportunity to bring about positive change to their lives?

We could have chosen to do what past governments have done and shy away from this very difficult debate. However we asked Canadians and members in this House to take on the challenge of changing people's lives and their children's lives by providing them with a better tool kit.

Everywhere I go, in every city and town, on every street and avenue, citizens of this great country are looking for change. It is our responsibility to bring about that change. It is our responsibility to give our young people a green light, not a pink slip. It is our responsibility to get people off the welfare rolls and on to the payrolls of our businesses. That is what this debate is all about.

It is clear that things are not working. We can sit idly by and not answer to the changes which are occurring all around us, or we can take some tough decisions and engage Canadians in a meaningful debate about the type of social security system they want.

I would like to look specifically at the options proposed in this debate. Let us look at increasing investment in our people through better employment programs, refocusing unemployment insurance to help people get jobs, and helping parents to balance work and family responsibilities through such measures as funding for better child care.

Let us bring children into the fold and give them opportunities. Let us get started the right way. Let us give young people, our children the support they need. Start them off on the right foot so they can look to the future with confidence because they have been given the tools, the nurturing and the love so many of them require. Let us support a welfare system that opens up opportunity and hope instead of locking people into dependence and keeping too many of our children in poverty.

I hear the hon. member from the Reform Party heckling. I think the Reform Party should come clean with Canadians. The only thing it has offered in this debate is that the way to erase poverty in this country is by lowering the level at which we define poverty. That is a simpleton's approach to a very important problem.

The federal government spends more than $3 billion on employment programs and services like job counselling, training and labour market information. It is or should be a good investment. It should help people get off UI or welfare and back into paid work. However, far too many people end up in programs that have little to do with opportunities or their needs. Many get training for jobs that do not exist locally. Many are shunted from one training program to the next when all they really need is some basic counselling and advice on what jobs are available.

The key is to build a flexible system. Social programs should serve people, not the other way around. People should not be made to fit into programs. Programs should be made so that people can have access to training. There should be flexibility so that people can go from one program to another to obtain the tool kit they require to participate fully in our economy.

For example only 10 per cent of all UI claimants receive counselling. We have to change that. We have to provide Canadians with wider opportunities, a bigger menu. Sometimes we put people in training programs when what they really require is some counselling and a personal action plan. Give them better labour market information. Tell them where the jobs are and what they should be training for. Tell them what the opportunities are in the present market and give them the required tools so they can get back into the labour force.

The action plan we are talking about would have to be supported by more flexible programs. As I said earlier, people need good information about the job market, more accessible training programs, different kinds of training, classroom training, on the job training, computer based training and distance learning to ensure they get what works best for their situation in their community.

Let us talk about incentives for hiring unemployed workers. In some cases government could pay part of the wages for those unemployed workers who need experience and on the job training. This would make it easier for employers to hire people with employment problems. Funding could also pay wages for unemployed workers to do useful work in their communities or to help unemployed individuals start their own businesses using the available tools. We have to pay more attention to getting results, to making sure that people get the help they need to get jobs. This means less attention to rigid rules and procedures set in Ottawa, more flexibility in letting communities manage their own programs. Businesses, workers, and others in the community can often decide what kind of programs work best at the local level. Let us put the words empowerment for communities, empowerment for the individual, a reality. It is by far the best way to deal with the issues ahead.

Let us look at better ways to deal in a co-operative manner with the provinces. Let us talk about a single window approach. People should not have to go to 7, 8, 9, 10 different offices to find out who is going to help them during these difficult times of unemployment and restructuring in our society.

Let us establish single windows in co-operation with the provinces, with local communities. Let us reach out at the community level and use what we have at our disposal to make sure that people are provided with better services, with better assistance, with a more efficient system that can help them deal with the challenges they face.

In addition, discussions with the provinces should look at improving the federal vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons. This exercise is about maximizing human potential. It is about giving our country the best possible, best skilled workforce available so that people, so that businesses, will be attracted to our nation. They will invest and we will create the type of vibrant community business environment that will speak to generating wealth for our nation.

Better employment programs will depend in part on designing a better UI program. The UI program works well for people who require short-term support while looking for a job but it does not work well for those who need help adjusting to the changes in the job market.

Canadians who find themselves repeatedly out of work need better support to get and keep jobs. The program often discourages adjustment. For some unemployed people there is no incentive to learn new skills that are in demand by employers.

The program is easily abused. Some workers and employers plan their work schedules around the UI program, alternating employment with UI benefits as a way of life. Many working Canadians, such as people in part time jobs or the self-employed, are not covered at all by the existing program.

What does that say about a society that on the one hand speaks about self-employment, promoting business, but then does not provide the support mechanism that is required for business to prosper?

The discussion paper outlines two basic proposals for unemployment insurance. One would work more or less the same way it does now but what is really the key is the adjustment component. Forty per cent of all UI claimants in the past five years have had at least three claims. That tells us that there is a dysfunctional relationship between that individual and the marketplace. So what do we do. We have to provide people with a tool kit that can reintegrate them into the workforce. These are new problems. We are not dealing with cyclical unemployment, we are dealing with structural unemployment. We cannot have the old form of unemployment insurance dealing with the new reality, the new economy. We need to change it, and this is proposed in the discussion paper.

There are many options to explore in this approach. For example, we need to decide how long claimants can draw adjustment benefits, and how much they should get. Two of the hardest questions would be the following.

Should benefits be income tested so that the amount a person receives depends on what other family income is available? That is one question we have to openly debate.

Is it fair that an individual who makes $40,000 or $50,000, working eight months of the year, receives UI benefits? Is it fair that somebody somewhere making $18,000 or $20,000 a year, working 12 months of the year, actually subsidizes that other individual? Is that fair?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

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.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

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.

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.

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.

[Social Policy, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to understand that far too many of our children live in poverty, far too many of our students are having a hard time finding that very first important job, far too many of our workers are having problems with the transition from work to work. The social security review is about bringing positive change to the lives of Canadians and I am sure that the hon. member will participate in this historic debate.

[Social Policy, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member once again for her question. I want to clearly outline to her that we have not tabled the discussion paper yet. I think it is only a couple of days away. She can wait. The member can rest assured that there is only one measuring stick on this side of the House, the discussion paper. The implementation of the legislation thereafter will only be successful if it improves the quality of life for Canadians. That is what this government is all about.

[Social Policy, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The hon. member has to understand that Canada's social security system dates back almost 40 years. There have been

many changes in our system. I think this will give the hon. member an opportunity to debate fundamental issues.

One thing is certain however. The hon. member can rest assured that this government on this side of the House is not advocating the lion's bite as stated by the Reform Party to cut $15 billion, taking away student programs, taking away seniors' programs, taking away all the programs Canadians have grown accustomed to.

Early on in the debate it was quite clear that the Reform Party only cares about who is paying. The Bloc Quebecois only cares about who controls. The only people who truly care about the quality of life of Canadians is the Liberal Party.