Madam Speaker, on the motion before us to set up a committee to examine the social security programs for this country, first of all I would like to commend the prospect that has been raised by this government through the Minister of Human Resources Development of a broad consultation on this issue which is very much close to the hearts and important to all Canadians.
I would also like to commend the prospect of considering Canadians' concerns and priorities. This is appropriate because Canadians pay the shot for these programs. It is also their lives and their futures which are being affected by any changes that might be made.
I would also like to commend the timetable that moves ahead briskly dealing with this issue of changes to social programs. It also shows real promise of input and responsibility for this initiative being given not to government bureaucracies and departments but with the elected representatives of the people where it belongs.
There are a couple of improvements I would like to recommend to the proposed mandate of the committee. First of all I believe we should define the terms in the mandate, particularly the terms modernization and restructuring. It seems to me that these words can be taken in quite a number of ways, depending on a person's philosophy or particular perspective on these issues. I believe that the government ought to define for the committee what exactly is meant by modernization of our social security programs and what is meant by restructuring.
Also I noted that the mandate made particular reference to the needs of families with children, youth and working age adults, but it omits seniors and Canadians in their retirement years. This is a very large and constantly growing segment of our society. I believe that the omission of this segment of society from the mandate of the committee is not wise.
It is still to be demonstrated also whether this broad consultation and the effort by members of this House through the committee will have any real meaningful or substantial impact on the final direction of the government.
Will it be like the public consultations on the Constitution which were held in 1992 which ignored the clearly expressed majority view of Canadians across the country? Will it be like the current pre-budget consultations where it appears to some Canadians at least that this government magnifies a few minority view comments into proof of support for a direction the government intends to go anyway while dismissing clear majority consensus?
If the current broad consultation and open debate turn out to be so much more empty window dressing, paid for once again by hard earned tax dollars and taking away time that could be spent actually achieving something, it will merely add to the cynicism and contempt Canadians already feel for government and the political process. I urge the minister and the government not to let that happen.
I commend the government for raising the hope of a more genuinely democratic process. I urge it to ensure that there is change, not just in the form but also in the substance of what is actually allowed to be achieved through the process.
This morning the minister set out his underlying philosophy on what we are trying to achieve by giving the mandate to the committee to change our social security systems. He said that jobs were the issue. He then went on to list existing systems that must be overhauled in order to "restore employment as a central focus of government policy".
I suggest one thing the committee also ought to do is examine the assumption that the purpose of the social security system is now to focus toward employment. Going one step further, it should even examine the assumption that we should look to government to guarantee that all Canadians have jobs.
Government assistance to ensure that Canada has trained workers and to provide for labour force training and adjustment would probably be supported by most Canadians. However that is something far different from rejigging the whole social security system toward job creation.
First, substantial numbers of Canadians think there would be a lot more jobs if government would just stop spending our money, mortgaging our future and creating a bureaucratic solution for every perceived need and demand. This viewpoint is large enough so that it ought to be represented and considered.
Second, many Canadians view our social security system as a way for us collectively to care for the old, the young, the sick and the poor among us. It is going to be quite a shock and surprise to discover that the focus of social security may be shifted to something quite different.
Canadians can see that our social programs are being eroded and that changes must be made if we want to be able to count on having a social safety net even a few years from now. To shift the focus from making programs sustainable and available to the truly needy, to using them primarily as a means to attempt to create jobs, has far reaching implications that require a clear public mandate, not just an assumed one. For these reasons, the new philosophy being now introduced by the government ought in my view to be examined by the committee, especially whether it carries the judgment of Canadians.
I hope these comments will be of help in providing the best possible mandate to the committee on behalf of the country and its work on behalf of all Canadians.
