House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was programs.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had only one more paragraph.
On behalf of the people, the neediest and the middle class, we reject the proposal of the Minister of Human Resources Development and we urge the government to come up with real measures, measures to create jobs.
Michel Daviault Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to participate in this debate on the proposed reform of social security programs put forth by the minister of social program cuts.
Let me tell you right away that this long-awaited reform proposal finally laid before us in a discussion paper will not be translated into actual legislation before next fall at the earliest, and perhaps not before 1996, as Chantal Hébert indicated in La Presse on October 5.
This use of public consultation to forestall objections by the provinces and pressure groups gives credence to the contention that this government intends once again to go it alone, by-passing the provinces as it recently did at the National Forum on Health.
It is always the same thing. "This recipe for income security to reform sounds like one Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark would have cooked up", writes Chantal Hébert.
The minister's document presents this reform proposal as a magic recipe to boost the economy as well as job creation. Make no mistake, the primary objective of the federal government is to make cuts in social programs to bring the deficit and the national debt down.
References made to compassion and fairness in this document have a rather conservative flavour to them, while the real face of this reform is rather hideous. Especially when we already know that, as indicated in a secret document submitted to Cabinet and published by the Toronto Star on October 5, this government plans to make another $7.5 billion in cuts over five years on top of the $7.5 billion announced in the last budget. So much for compassion!
On the subjects of job creation and unemployment insurance, I will only touch on a few aspects of the proposal dealing with job creation and changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The proposals made in this document rest, in fact, on a misdiagnosis of the current situation. The problem facing Canada and Quebec is job scarcity. The reform proposal deals exclusively with employability, while what we really need is a real job creation policy.
A group of professors of social law at the University of Quebec in Montreal wrote recently: "They talk about employability, adapting individuals to the labour market and training people for jobs that do not exist, instead of adopting a real job-creation policy". The group adds: "It is incorrect to postulate that the unemployment problem is due to individuals not being adapted to the market, as though they were merchandise [-]To put people back to work, they first need something more than insecure, underpaid jobs".
As for the employment situation, the employment/population ratio is the most reliable indicator of the actual employment situation. In Quebec, this ratio is now 54.7 per cent, while in April 1990, just before the last recession began, it was around 58.6 per cent. This statistic shows that we are still very far from the pre-recession employment level and that the employment recovery is very slow.
Considering population growth, 800,000 jobs would have to be created in Canada, more than 200,000 of them in Quebec alone, to return to the level of April 1990; at the present rate of job creation, assuming that there will be no slowdown before the end of 1995, it will take at least three years to return to the pre-recession level.
This shows how anemic the recovery that the federal government tells us about is. In fact, this recovery is due more to increased productivity than to increased employment. Statistics for September 1994 show that following a large rise in the previous month, unemployment stabilized in Quebec at 12.2 per cent, while in Ontario it continued to fall, reaching 9.2 per cent.
In particular, employment in the Montreal market is growing a little more slowly than in the first quarter of 1994. The annual rate of growth in the metropolitan area went from 4.8 to 2.6 per cent. Moreover, Montreal continues to lag behind the rest of the country and has not recovered one fifth of the jobs lost during the recession. This is taken from L'économie de Montréal for the second quarter of 1994.
The jobless rate for residents of the City of Montreal is three points higher than for the metropolitan Montreal census area.
As for the proposed reform recommendations, one of the options favoured by the government is to introduce a second class of unemployed for those with precarious jobs. We know full well that such jobs are mostly held by young people, women and artists. These second-class unemployed people would be subject to "compulsory" employability measures and forced to participate in community work. They would also have to pay higher premiums in return for lower benefits.
Proposing such measures takes a certain amount of cynicism, as they clearly show that this government sees the unemployed as lazy people-beer drinkers, as the Prime Minister said-whom a very paternalistic government must force to take the necessary steps to find jobs.
We can only conclude that the federal government has no job-creation policy as we know full well that coercive measures do not generate employment. Yet, the term "employment" can be found throughout the discussion paper. They even talk about employment insurance, which is misleading, as it would be more accurate to refer to poverty insurance or social insecurity reform.
By attempting to reduce the debt through arbitrary cuts in social programs, the government will only manage to increase the number of welfare recipients.
The first thing this government should do about unemployment is to allow interested provinces to implement a coherent manpower training program, as it just did in the case of Quebec's Mohawks. "This is truly a double standard", said Quebec's employment minister, Mrs. Louise Harel, to the daily Le Devoir , adding that, from the federal government's perspective, what is good for the Mohawks is bad for Quebecers.
But let us go back to that system with two types of unemployed workers: those who hold precarious jobs and those have seasonal jobs. Bureaucrats use a very politically correct expression in reference to these people, calling them frequent claimants.
One of the most disturbing aspects of these recommendations is that women would be the first to be affected, given the family income criteria.
"Taking the family income into account transforms the UI program into a more selective program, somewhat like the social assistance program. [-]Such a measure would put an end to the universality of the right to work. Once again, women are the ones who will be affected", added the UQUAM task force.
Several other questions remain unanswered. For example, what does the reform recommend for workers aged 50 and over? These are people who have held the same job for 20 to 25 years. Training? Retraining for a year or two and for non-existent jobs? What will happen to the very limited Program for Older Worker Adjustment, POWA, which is unfair to Montreal workers precisely because of the federal criteria being applied?
All this, finally, to follow the finance minister's orders: cutting assistance to the poor rather than taxing the rich. Thus, new and even more arbitrary cuts will be hardly surprising, since the government wants to reduce its deficit by $25 billion by 1997.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tries to sound compassionate and alarmist when insinuating that:
if we do not carry out this reform-that is, if we do not cut social programs-the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the international financial establishment could do it in our place.
There are other ways to reduce the deficit and to put into place a real job creation policy, and we have indicated some of these to the government. Cutting social programs will certainly not rid us of the unemployment plague.
Dan McTeague Liberal Ontario, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with some concern. It seems to me he was very negative in his references to the government and made it seem as though one of our initiatives is a way of getting even with the unemployed because we feel they are lazy.
He also said that with our social security reform, we were taxing the poor. It is of course not the first time that comments from the Bloc Quebecois are rather negative and do not represent the real situation.
Where did the hon. member get his information, and could he quote his sources?
Michel Daviault Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. In Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate , released last week by the Minister of Finance, the minister said that major structural changes had also been made in the Unemployment
Insurance Program, in this budget. However, these changes are only a first step. The document entitled Improving Social Security in Canada contains proposals that would further change the structure of various programs and lead to major additional spending cuts, the objective being two-fold: to reduce premiums and reinforce job development services.
Of course, it is the government's job to be positive about these proposals. There are others who question the consistency of the Liberal government. For instance, today we read in The Citizen , in an analysis by Mark Kennedy, and I will quote the passage in English:
In 1990 the Mulroney government changed the unemployment insurance program so that people had to work longer to qualify for UI and if they did their benefits expired sooner. The Liberal report at that time said the measure had led to dramatic increases in the number of people being forced from UI to welfare. The party urged the government to rescind the change.
In 1990 the Mulroney government froze transfer payments to provinces for health care and post-secondary education. The Liberal report condemned the action. In opposition the Liberals said funding limits for welfare programs would just hurt those who had nowhere else to turn. In government the Liberals have not repealed the Tories' funding formula. Rather, they want a new formula that means even less federal spending on basic welfare.
In opposition the Liberals said a freeze on health care funding runs counter to the fight against child poverty. In government the Liberals have not ended the freeze and the Prime Minister warned last week that health care funding will need to be cut or medicare will be destroyed.
In opposition the Liberals said cuts in federal support for post-secondary education have led to higher costs for education which include higher tuition fees and that led to higher unemployment for youth.
In government, they do the same thing.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleague from Ahuntsic could help me reassure senior citizens, especially those living alone.
In the town of East Broughton, in my riding, there is a lady called Mrs. Lessard, who calls me just about every week in need of reassurance. Again last Friday, she called my office to tell me that she could hardly make ends meet. She reminded me once more that the Liberal government had been elected on the promise to get rid of the GST. She told me that she had postponed filling up her oil tank in the hope that the GST would disappear before winter. But she realized that she could wait no longer and had to have her tank filled; and, of course, she had to pay the infamous GST plus the QST.
Once again, I would ask the hon. member for Ahuntsic to help me make senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel more secure.
Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I would ask the member for Ahuntsic to please give a short answer.
Michel Daviault Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to make senior citizens feel more secure. But this measure was taken on the spur of the moment, without any strategy. As mentioned in the UQAM's document, the government wants us to believe that we are being consulted. First, it threatens us with cuts, no matter what the consultations result in. Then, it fails to link its reform with other issues such as Old Age Security, the national health policy, or a concrete and comprehensive reform of the tax system, which are all important points. The government is only looking at the problem from a cost standpoint without giving itself the means to solve it through taxation. It is only going to review the tax system six months down the road.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate regarding the future of Canada's social services.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources Development for his commitment to ensure that all Canadians can participate in this consultation process. The result will be a fundamental change in our social services. The reason for this change is evident. As the Prime Minister has already said, the status quo is not an option.
It has been Liberals who have responded to previous needs for social service programs and put into place the social services that we have today. Liberal governments of the past have introduced among other programs old age pensions, unemployment insurance, the Canada pension plan and student loans.
This Liberal government now calls upon Canadians to accept the challenge to redefine priorities, to identify what is important and to create a new social policy for the next century. This challenge is not about change for the sake of change. It is the government's response to Canadians who have demanded changes in the way that our social system operates now. It is a response to a changing society. We have been asked to do this by Canadians.
The programs that exist today were created for different circumstances and under different times. The recession and restructuring felt deeply by millions of Canadians make what we are setting out to do not only urgent but fundamental for our survival as a nation.
Yesterday's solutions are not going to answer today's problems. New solutions are necessary and we are going to provide those solutions for Canadians.
The task is enormous, make no mistake. We are asking Canadians to redefine what is fundamental to many. With this reform we are going to change everything from unemployment insurance to social welfare. The task is not government's alone, however. All Canadians have been asked to participate and support this effort to provide better service.
The need for reform is evident and clear. We are taking a responsible approach to a difficult agenda. It is easy to simply cry for cuts and reductions. What lies before us is a task of nation building. We are participating in a historic opportunity to reshape our social security programs. The end result should ensure that the world will again look to Canada as a nation that cares for its own and has rebuilt its social programs to respond to our needs now.
This exercise is more than deficit reduction. Obviously we would not be experiencing this sense of urgency without the need to control our debt and deficit. More important however, we are responding to programs which no longer reflect the changing needs of a changing society. Quite evidently the status quo, as the Prime Minister has said, can no longer be accepted.
My constituents know that we are facing serious decisions. They want our government to act. They also want to participate in a process which makes them a part of the solution. They want us together to confront poverty, to ensure that our children are able to enjoy the best post-secondary education and they want to be protected from unforeseen circumstances. While they want government to provide these services, they know we no longer are able to afford the services of the past, especially services which are unable to respond to current needs.
The standard of living in Guelph-Wellington is very good. Despite a lower than average unemployment rate, we still have incidents of child poverty; there are a number of seasonal workers more affected by economic downturns than most of us; we have seniors and students who fear for their future; and the United Way and other agencies are busy with demands for their services. Guelph-Wellington like all of Canada has felt the ravages of the recession. We have individuals who relied on and continue to need the kinds of social services that we are being asked to improve.
What the people of Guelph-Wellington have always demanded from government is quality. They want their money to be well spent, they want value and they demand excellence. They want a social service network that protects those most in need, allows for flexibility, encourages growth in the human spirit and above all assists in job creation and economic renewal, for that truly is the way to success. They do not want people to be dependent but rather they encourage independence. They want to help build and encourage. They no longer want, nor will they accept the status quo.
My constituents know that many of the proposals in the green book are new and daring but they want to take the chance in order to effect change. I have discussed for example the proposals regarding income contingent repayment loans for students with the president and the students of the University of Guelph. They know there are risks in this proposal but they want the freedom to better plan their post-secondary education. They want to take a more active role in what affects them.
The University of Guelph welcomes new innovations and ideas. The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome the opportunity to effect change in post-secondary education and other programs. They want to share responsibility with this government. They want programs which will be fair and will benefit all Canadians fairly.
We must address fundamental and very real issues in the next few months. Above all we are not only talking about programs, we are addressing real people with real needs. We are talking to the seasonal worker who in his or her construction trade faces a two year waiting list for employment after they have completed a job. We are talking about the teenager in Erin, Ontario who is hoping to attend university. This reform is about the senior in Guelph and the newborn in Puslinch.
We are going to talk about new ways to help those who are struggling to make ends meet. We are going to find new ways to assist Canadians who today have no idea that they will need social assistance in the future, but because of some unfortunate circumstance they will find themselves seeking help at some point in their life.
The majority of people in my riding voted Liberal because they trust a Liberal government. They know that Liberals have in the past responded to similar difficult situations. They want reductions in government spending to be sensible and reasonable. They want a responsible approach to social service renewal and they want real consultation.
This process will result in a new and better way to provide social services. It will end the duplication of services and build on new partnerships.
The people of Guelph-Wellington no longer want to know who is to blame for the past. They want to know who to turn to for their future. They want decision making which will be for their benefit and for the benefit of all Canadians. They want to join our government in renewal. They want jobs, security and education for their children and for themselves and assistance for the unemployed. They want welfare that teaches, encourages and trains for new skills rather than a government handout that demeans and discourages. They want literacy, employment opportunity and the dignity of work that our Prime Minister is quick to always encourage. They want to participate in nation building, not division.
We are responding to the demands of our history. Last fall the Liberals asked Canadians to help create opportunity. This fall we are asking them to seize that opportunity and build a better Canada. The people of Guelph-Wellington are ready to answer that call. Together we will build a Canada that will remain the best country in the world.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Guelph-Wellington said about the reform of social security in Canada.
Last weekend, I spent several hours meeting groups of my constituents in Frontenac and when they were told that the country is on the brink of bankruptcy, with an accumulated deficit of $550 billion, some of them reminded us that this monstrous debt was created not by the Conservatives but by the Liberals, a government to which the present Prime Minister has belonged practically since his youth.
Remember that this $550-billion debt was not created overnight. The deficits began to pile up in the early 1970s, in the Trudeau era, and now a real climate of fear is being created throughout the land; people are almost made to feel guilty for collecting an allowance for their children or an old age pension or a welfare cheque. Some feel guilty, as though they were cheating the country, but they are not.
Most of these social measures were brought in by a Liberal government and now it will cost a fortune in advertising and cross-Canada tours to try to make the electorate swallow the pill. I asked my constituents on the weekend what they proposed to reduce this famous deficit. Since it was in the news, they said why not cut the $2 million for the Robin Hood, William Tell and Top Gun exercises.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me that $2 million is a drop in the bucket. Yes, a little snow does not stop a locomotive, but billions and billions of flakes of snow will stop the whole train. You see, $2 million are being spent so that some sixty of our soldiers can go and have fun in Florida.
Two weeks ago, we were told that $2 million a year were spent on the restaurant here on the sixth floor while senators and MPs invited their constituents and friends for lunch and forgot to pay before leaving. Two million a year; it is a real disgrace! It is really shameful, and then we hear that politicians are unpopular. With things like that, the voters in Frontenac are right to question politicians' good will.
I wonder if the member for Guelph-Wellington could give us her opinion, her own, not her government's which I already know, but her own opinion on tax shelters or family trusts which contain billions of dollars that could be collected from wealthy individuals.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I could go on forever on this one. To the hon. member for Frontenac, you are quite right, a Liberal government was responsible for many programs that have helped this community-
Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Members should be sure they direct their comments through the Chair and not directly to one another.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was just getting started. There is no doubt a Liberal government has been responsible for many of the innovative and new reforms that have made Canada what it is today, clearly the best country in the world rated for the second time. Let us put that on record.
It is important to understand that all of the benefits brought in by a Liberal government were brought in for the country as a whole, including Quebec. It is very important for that member to understand that we look after all Canadians.
The member for Frontenac talks about our growing the debt. I wish to inform him that to begin with some of the debt was caused by the Liberal government. Then we had the new regime, the Tories, and a small debt grew into a huge debt.
The member for Frontenac says that we are on the verge of bankruptcy. I wish to be very clear on that. We are not on the verge of bankruptcy. That is clearly a tactic to entice Quebec people to buy into that notion. As we know from the recent election many Quebec people do not buy into that sort of thinking or mindset. We know it is not true.
We are however at a crossroads. Clearly the government is going to act on reforming social programs. I draw the attention of the hon. member to the Financial Post of today that states clearly Canadians are in support of this reformation. We are catching up to what all Canadians want, Quebec included.
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of change. Although I have not entirely determined my position on all the proposals contained in the government's discussion paper "Improving Social Security in Canada", I am carefully considering the various options. Frankly I am waiting for my constituents to digest these ideas and tell me what they think.
However I am certain of my support for the process the discussion paper initiates. It is a process of change. The government is once again showing its commitment to innovation and complete consultation with Canadians in an open and constructive manner.
The change I speak of is necessary because in Canada we have a social security system that is simply not working properly. Our social programs no longer function adequately, often neglecting those people who need help. I need only cite recent statistics on child poverty to prove the point.
Clearly there are some people caught in the revolving door of welfare who are otherwise capable and willing to work. That is a problem. It hurts the system and impedes our ability to deliver efficient programs. We must improve the system. We must bring about change.
When the Minister of Human Resources Development released his discussion paper a short while ago, immediately we listened to the barrage of criticism from across the House and complaints from interest groups across the country.
I could not be happier. In my mind the discussion paper is a total success. That is exactly what a discussion paper is supposed to do: to get Canadians talking about our social security system. Whether the comments are positive or negative Canadians have started the debate on social policy. That is exactly our intention. It is debate by Canadians that will inspire the creative ideas we need to improve our social security programs.
I remind members across the floor that the discussion paper is not government policy but rather a framework of proposals to work toward solutions. The debate will continue. The government is listening to the condemnations from political camps and special interest lobbies. Lo and behold the silent majority speaks. Canadians were recently solicited for their opinions. Scientific sources tell us the strong majority of Canadians think the social security system needs change.
That is one reason I am a member of this majority government. We promised change. We were elected to a majority for change and now we are delivering on change. Furthermore an overwhelming majority of people in the country apparently think specific programs like unemployment insurance and welfare desperately need change. I reiterate that I stand in support of change.
I also support the nation's exemplary tradition of helping our poor, our disadvantaged and our unfortunate. However I am concerned that what began as a system of assistance for the poor, the unemployed and disadvantaged has turned into a social trap. The system now applies social assistance inappropriately, thus missing the target and costing far too much in the process. Canada's social security system has drifted from its original intent. That is why we are here re-examining the issue with the objective of improving it.
I cannot speak for my colleagues but I have received several letters from people who are upset. They say that we are unfairly subsidizing the social security system and that we must seriously address those concerns.
I am not blaming the victims in our society. I want a social security system that will protect and help victims of misfortune. If we do not improve the system we will not be able to help those people in the future. We also have to face financial realities. When social programs are unfairly applied those truly in need are the people who suffer.
I would like to examine a couple of specific ideas if I could. One is the concept of getting people back to work. The other is the essence that in the priority of the government jobs for Canadians will solve a lot of our social security problems.
There is a deficiency with programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance. For example it often makes more sense to remain on the welfare roll rather than seek employment because sometimes welfare benefits pay better than low end jobs. There is no incentive for people to enter the workforce and advance careers into better paying jobs. The problem is well documented.
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect we should develop policy that motivates people on welfare to enter the workforce. By encouraging Canadians to find jobs we are also helping individuals gain the dignity we all desire.
The proposal of supplementing wages with social assistance until people rise above the poverty line while remaining in the workforce is a commendable idea. We must also develop effective job training programs so that people can acquire the skills they need to excel in the workforce.
Social programs must involve the availability of education. We must explore policy options that direct federal funds to provide education and training for people who currently receive social assistance. Far too many children live in poverty because parents do not have the option of furthering their education and developing meaningful careers. By providing opportunities for education and training we will see welfare rolls decrease.
The proposed two tier system of unemployment as it relates to insurance has received considerable support in my riding at this early stage of social policy review. I contend that the UI program is being abused. The program should be used only as insurance in circumstances where Canadians find themselves unavoidably caught between employment opportunities. That is what the program was originally intended for but is not how the program operates today.
Unfortunately many Canadians have learned to depend on UI as a steady source of income. I do not think it is fair to ask working Canadians to subsidize those who consistently calculate UI into annual income strategies. We have to pay special attention to our seasonal workers. There are many Canadians and many careers in Canada that depend on seasonal employment. Those people cannot be left out in the cold, but we must address the excessive costs to Canadian taxpayers of a system that allows people to depend on social assistance when they are capable of working.
Rather than simply ignoring frequent UI applicants we should help them find long term employment, or perhaps multiple seasonal jobs. The government is obviously open to suggestions. We cannot escape the fact that the UI system needs improvement.
In conclusion I support the discussion paper on social policy because it represents an agenda for change. We are going through profound changes. Some of these changes are stamped with dire predictions of doom and gloom. I say that just the opposite is true. Social policy review is one component of a new process for change. We are asking that Canadians temper their immediate expectations. We are asking for sacrifice today so that our children may prosper in the future.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the dissertation of my hon. colleague from Kenora-Rainy River on the very important subject of social policy reform.
Would the hon. member opposite be good enough to clarify his personal views on two very basic subjects? First, does the member opposite feel that entitlements or benefits should be based on need or want? Second, should those benefits be available universally or universally available, which is a very different phrase? Third and because it is so important, what would the hon. member opposite consider to be the minimum definition of a child in poverty?
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across the way let me make it clear I believe that benefits should be based on need.
The fact remains that we as a government can assess policy options through the review we are having with Canadians once the consultation process is over. I believe there is a strong possibility that we will be able to create change and programs and policies that base their assumptions on the needs of certain Canadians.
On the question of what is perceived to be the definition of poverty, I grew up in what would probably be classified as a poor to lower middle class family with 10 children. Our father and mother worked their tails off to get us through school and to a point where we could succeed as Canadians should. To me poverty is when there is no opportunity to succeed. That is a pretty easy, simple definition. When I went to school and was of university age I would never have had the ability to go to university without government participation. My parents could not afford to send 10 kids to university.
There is a need for governments to participate in helping people with the capabilities get from one school level to the next. The government and its record will prove that we have done that in the past and will do it in the future.
To me poverty also means that the basic necessities of life are looked after so students do not go to school hungry. In Kenora-Rainy River I represent the most aboriginal communities of any member of the House with a total of 46. A large majority of the kids I represent in First Nations communities go to bed hungry and go to school hungry.
If we as a government are not cognizant of that fact and do not create programs to deal with young people, how can they be expected to get off the treadmill they are on? Governments should participate in a program that makes sure young people have an opportunity or a chance by having a roof over their head and by being well fed and well nourished. Then when they do go to school, because we are supplying education, they will want to learn. They will be willing to get to the next step.
As a young person I had the opportunity to get into an educational institution to better myself so that I could make my way and make a life for my own family.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stated that the consultation document being debated for the past few days ago accommodated a need for change. I would like to tell him that we will wait and see how the people react, if they feel there is really a need to cut in our social safety net. Let me give him an example of the impact one of the measures contained in this document will have.
As this is only a consultation document, I will ask him to tell us how he feels more particularly about cuts in established programs, the post-secondary education shared-cost programs between the federal government the provinces. A $300 million cut is contemplated. Cutting transfers in this area will have the following impact on the provinces, which have no more financial resources than the federal government: just for the education system to be maintained, tuition fees will have to be at least doubled.
On the other hand, the same document mentions training objectives, the fact that in today's competitive market, adequate training is essential and we must find a way to target training well, to make sure Canadians are adequately trained. At the
same time, the government pushes for a measure that will result in tuition fees doubling, because we must recognize that these fees will double. I have heard the member give the example of a large family. Does he not believe that this measure will adversely affect access to post-secondary education and thus hinder training in terms of secondary and post-secondary education?
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought up before. I do not know how long the member opposite has been out of school but as you can tell I have not been out of school that long. I remember when I borrowed money from the government through the system that was in place at that time which basically has not been changed very dramatically since then.
One of the issues the member talks about is the fact that there is a proposal to make cuts in the funding that flows directly to provinces. I totally encourage that. In fact I have discussed it with my colleagues. The present system of dollars flowing to the provinces for post-secondary education has totally failed young Canadians. It has not worked.
If the member is concerned that tuition is rising, he should look at what has been happening around him. It has been rising 10 per cent per year for the last four or five years. It is on the move up.
The government is suggesting a system where students can pay back the dollars they borrowed based on how much money they make when they get out of the system. It is a system used in other parts of the world and is much more efficient.
If he talks to the staff in his office about one particular constituency problem he may regularly face, he may find that young people are coming in on a regular basis because they cannot afford to pay their student loans. There has to be a way of changing the system and that is one of its major problems.
Last, he asked about training. One of the proposals is about transferring dollars to training and supplementing the people on welfare with training dollars. We are not reducing the amount of money that a Canadian will get. We are increasing it with a built-in incentive which is a much more appropriate process than saying to someone: "Here is your welfare cheque. Don't ever bother coming back into the system. Stay where you are. We like you being on the poverty line". We are saying that we will give a minimum amount of welfare but we will supplement it with training dollars so people can improve themselves and get back into the workforce. In this way they will be a part of the constructive society we are trying to build.
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our whip and pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) the Reform caucus will be dividing its time.
I would like to comment briefly on the discussion paper before us on social security released by the Minister of Human Resources Development. As well I would like to comment on remarks made regarding the Financial Post and the poll it has taken. I note there is major support for what is called ``Axworthy's reforms''. The question is very simple: Do you support reform of the social security system? Anybody would say yes to that. Anybody. The question really does not have very much credibility when you look at it.
Of note also in that poll is another statistic that is relevant and I would like to talk about it here today. It is that 78 per cent of those people polled thought that reforms were to save money and to meet the government's goal of deficit reduction. People are very conscious of their responsibilities and of the current circumstances of the government.
This discussion document has established three objectives: first, to help Canadians get and keep work; second, to support those most vulnerable; and third, to ensure affordability. These are certainly laudable goals which all of us can support. However the discussion paper does not set out a realistic plan to achieve them.
First, the paper does not adequately recognize the gravity of the financial situation we are facing in this nation. Second, the paper attaches no price tag to any of the proposals. If the document is to enable Canadians to make intelligent choices regarding our social security system, it must include the cost of the programs and a realistic picture of how much money we can afford to spend. I certainly want to emphasize the word afford at this point in time.
The first objective of the social security review is to increase employment. How does the minister propose to do this? Three ideas are presented and it is worthy of note that none of them are specific nor do any come with a price tag.
The minister suggests improving employment development services. The list includes job counselling, training, labour market information and various other buzzwords that we read in discussion papers such as this one.
The paper notes that existing programs which provide these services have not worked very well, however no consideration is given for why they have not worked. This is the first place where the paper is inadequate. No time is taken to consider why the existing programs have failed to meet their objectives. Rather it is automatically assumed that what we need is a new program to fix the mess that was left by the old ones, just a new program.
Incentives for hiring unemployed workers are also suggested in the paper. Such schemes often call for the government to pay a portion of the worker's wages so that he or she can gain valuable work experience. This all sounds great on the surface, however
these types of programs lead only to rearranged jobs rather than adding new ones.
Furthermore when employment incentives are exhausted firms simply drop the formerly subsidized workers from the payroll and the cycle begins again. Another unemployed person is picked up by the government program only to be dropped shortly thereafter. That is not the solution to the problem. The OECD, and I add this as support, has examined such subsidy programs and concluded they cost more than the value of the benefit they derive.
The paper before us considers the unemployment insurance system. Certainly the unemployment insurance system needs reform but the minister should know that simply changing the name from unemployment insurance to employment insurance will not save the Canadian taxpayer one cent nor will it add one job to the economy.
At least in the case of UI the paper gives two fairly clear options. However they are once again without any type of cost benefit analysis. How much more money would it cost? We do not know the answer to this question. This is precisely what makes this discussion paper inappropriate as a consultation tool under the present fiscal circumstances. Hard financial choices have to be made and this paper seems to ignore those choices which must be made not only by the House of Commons but by the Canadian people as a whole.
The discussion paper also deals with the funding of education. Certainly literacy and lifelong learning are trendy concepts but where are the specifics? How will the government increase literacy and improve access to education? This is perhaps the section of the paper which is most devoid of any realistic and detailed suggestions. This is unfortunate since the government's own admission is that education is a key factor in economic growth and productivity.
In addition to the status quo only two options are presented. They include the use of RRSPs to fund education and training and also a system of income contingent student loans.
The government has turned to RRSPs to accomplish various whims of its social agenda. It does not want to deal with what I believe is the root problem: government overspending. RRSPs were used to stimulate housing in the first time home buyers plan. Now the government is considering them for education.
Canada's growing inability to fund essential programs cannot be resolved on the back of RRSPs even though they may be a good idea for saving not only for education but for a person's retirement. Rather the government must cut unnecessary spending in order to stop the crippling effects of our spiralling debt.
On the issue of income contingent loans I will simply draw the attention of hon. members to a private member's bill on this very issue by the leader of the Reform Party. We encourage members opposite to continue to read the blue book. It has given me great pleasure to watch the Minister of Finance as he has moved from the red book to the purple book to the grey book. Most likely one of these days he will see the light and accept the blue book.
The second objective of the government's social security review is to support those most vulnerable. We in the Reform Party support this objective as well. Once again, however, we disagree with the discussion paper as to the best way to achieve this goal. The role of social policy must be to foster the right balance between personal responsibility to care for yourself and your family and both public and private health for those truly in need; in other words, targeted support and assistance.
Since the 1960s the government has enacted program after program which discouraged personal responsibility and encouraged many Canadians to rely on the government for their support and sustenance. We see the devastating results today.
The third objective in the government's social security review is to ensure that social programs are financially sustainable. We all support that. It is a good goal. However, how is it going to be done? The green book contains the statement: "The debt needs to be tackled because it causes real damage to jobs and security". Where has the minister been? The debt has been causing real damage to jobs and security for quite some time now.
Perhaps the minister should pay more careful attention to his colleague the Minister of Finance. He recognizes that the debt and the deficit are hurting our economy now. It is crippling our ability to compete economically. One of the facts we know is that the annual cost of the $535 billion debt now consumes 42 per cent of federal revenues, excluding the unemployment insurance program which is self-financing.
I ask this question: Does the Minister of Human Resources Development understand the significance of our ability to finance social programs? What about the possibility of a recession? It could occur before the government significantly surpasses or meets the 3 per cent deficit to GDP target. What will that mean to government revenues? It will mean that they could dive, that interest rates could climb and possibly the debt will spiral. I shudder to think of the fate of our social programs and medicare under those circumstances.
From a financial perspective another serious problem with regard to this review process is the exclusion of the Canada pension program and old age assistance from the process. Under the present framework these two programs will become more expensive due to changing demographics. This expansion will increase payroll taxes causing a further drop in employment and increased economic insecurity. This is only symptomatic of a
broader problem. If unchecked, the growth in social spending when combined with interest on the debt will consume 100 per cent of government revenues by the year 2010.
As I have said, the traditional Liberal approach to social policy which is presented in this discussion paper denies the financial realities of today. Recognizing the extreme seriousness of our deficit problem and reducing social program expenditures is essential if we are to preserve the ability to help those who are truly in need.
Reductions in spending are not heartless. Consider the advice of the finance minister to our finance committee:
If people come before you and say that now is not the time to cut, ask them to describe the morality and the justice of letting the debt continue to run wild, unchecked, ruining the future of our children.
That is a significant statement and one that must be considered when we look at this social review. When the social review is considered in the context of Canada's economic situation, one hard fact emerges to which the green book gives little attention. The social security review must result in expenditure reductions. Seventy-eight per cent of the people polled said that must be a target.
The finance minister admitted this reality in his budget speech in February when he said the days of governments-
Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order. I wonder if I might seek the assistance of the House. The 10 minutes has certainly well lapsed. I know that 10 minutes on subject matter of such importance is not very long. If the House would agree to let the member conclude his remarks, we would waive the five minute question and comment period.
Agreed?
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much.
If the government wants to meet its objectives of helping people find and keep work, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring affordability, it must recognize that major reductions in spending are required. Only when the financial situation of this country is brought under control will our social programs be safe.
In light of this the Minister of Human Resources Development must be criticized for neglecting to include financial details in the discussion paper. If the government continues on its present course with social reform and refuses to make the required reductions in expenditures, the time will soon come when Canada will be unable to care for those who are truly in need. Reformers are much too responsible to let that happen.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker , it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to respond to the government motion on social program reform. It is indeed encouraging to see the Liberal Party which brought us these failed experiments in social engineering finally concede that its programs are unworkable and unsustainable.
Canada is under attack today, far greater than any attack that might have come our way by war. We are under attack by a deficit and a debt that are dragging us down. The finance minister has come to appreciate this. In the last week or so he has been talking about the fact that we are in debt to our eyeballs, the impact that debt has on job creation and indeed the threat to our social programs.
I am pleased we are having this discussion today because the social programs we are talking about represent such a huge part of the federal government's budget. In addressing these programs we must find a way of delivering them not only cheaper but better. I think that can be done. Over the years we have thrown money at these problems to the detriment. We have not helped the situation, we have aggravated it.
I look forward to this discussion today. I would like to point out there should be no question that when it is all over there must be a dollar saving. The taxpayers are asking for it. It was reflected in the study reported today in the Financial Post that Canadian taxpayers are supporting what is going on here because they very much believe it is going to represent a saving in tax dollars, which we all so desperately need. I want to make that point. It is not something the government should be ashamed of. It is something the people in this country want and are asking for.
Nowhere is it more evident in the Liberal attempt to change or reorder society than in the social programs that directly intrude on the family. The whole area of child care expenditure with the state as the nanny is a clear example of this intrusion. Today I will look at the Liberal ideas and current programs and I will offer the Reform constructive alternative.
The Liberal social security discussion paper describes institutional day care as a priority if social programs are to be reformed. It states that we must provide working parents with the assurance of quality care. I would ask what care could possibly be better than quality care offered by the child's own parents? No government program or initiative, no matter how well thought out and expensive, could ever provide the love and affection or match the quality of care that only parents can provide.
The minister stated in the House when asked about informal child care, meaning family, friends and neighbours, that parents have to work because that is how they get sufficient income. The minister should have said sufficient disposable income because
almost all Canadians earn more than sufficient wages. This government and others tax over half of it away. It is excessively high taxes that have forced both parents out to work.
When my Reform colleagues and I came to Ottawa we promised to be a constructive alternative, to be open and honest and offer our best solutions to the debate. We have done this in many ways, including producing our plan to eliminate the deficit in three years and a comprehensive policy manual called the blue sheet.
Today in this House I am going to make it very clear where the Reform Party stands on the reform of social programs directed at children. I am also going to give the minister some clear direction in some areas where he can cut spending or spend more effectively.
The Reform Party believes that the care of children is the domain of families and that parents must have full responsibility in Canadian society to nurture, provide for and rear their children. Current federal government programs are intrusive and restrict the choices that parents may make in deciding on the best type of care for their family.
The role of government is to provide a fair tax and benefit system that provides parents with the opportunity to properly care for their children in a manner of their choosing. Government must uphold the authority and responsibilities of parents as exclusive in the area of child rearing. The only acceptable direct role for the government is as an intervener to protect children in cases of abuse or neglect.
According to the red ink book, this Liberal government is spending over 400 million tax dollars a year on institutionalized day care already and plans to spend an additional $720 million over the next three years. Given the recent discovery that the current deficit is indeed as serious as we have been saying all along, how do we justify this? A Reform government would end all state run day care.
We believe that the federal government should not involve itself with day care programs in any way. If regulation of services is necessary then this should be provided by the level of government closest to those Canadians receiving the service which can most efficiently provide that regulation. Regulation of day care is a provincial responsibility and should remain so. Federal involvement in and funding for day care should be terminated.
Let us make no mistake about this point. Federal governments have long justified their intrusion in matters of provincial social program responsibility with the short phrase: "They cannot afford to fund it fully themselves". If the provinces cannot afford it, it is because it is indeed unaffordable. There is only one source of funding for all levels of government because there is only one taxpayer. If taxpayers cannot afford something provincially, what makes the Liberal government think that it can afford it?
The military family support program is a small bureaucracy within the Department of National Defence that costs taxpayers $16 million a year and which does not directly benefit one child. There is another $100 million to be saved by eliminating the children's bureau of Health Canada. This is not a Liberal creation. It was a pet project of the failed government of Brian Mulroney. There should be no opposition from this Liberal government to eliminating this large Conservative created bureaucracy that exists simply to study day care and push so-called safe sex education. Little of this $100 million directly benefits children.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spends $270 million on various child care programs. Much of this money is directed at institutions and so-called professionals. This is unacceptable to the Reform Party and we believe it must stop.
The child care expense deduction is an example of gross inequality in our tax system, discriminating against stay at home parents. This tax deduction will cost over $1.5 billion in lost revenue per year while the modest supplemental benefit is another $400 million.
There are several reasonable alternatives to this current situation. However the bottom line is that any benefit which is given to parents to care for their children must be applied equally regardless of employment status.
A few weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance shot down a bill in this House that would have allowed parents to split some of their income for taxation purposes. Such a measure would have introduced some of the equity and fairness we as a party are looking for. It would also have recognized the value of the work of stay at home parents who are mostly women.
This government likes to talk about defending women's rights and introducing equality for women. In fact, it has even appointed a secretary of state responsible for so-called women's issues. I wonder which issues this secretariat represents. Are they the issues pushed by NAC and the day care lobby? They are certainly not responding to the needs and concerns of working Canadian parents, the majority of whom wish to have one parent stay at home to raise their children as was made quite clear by the recent Angus Reid poll on the family.
We believe that tax reform will be a key aspect of any true reform of social programs. As a party, Reformers believe that a move toward a system of flat taxation will lower administrative costs dramatically and introduce new fairness to taxation.
With respect to children, the Reform Party would continue to recognize the costs associated with their care through a tax credit that would be available to those families with dependent children who are in financial need. The credit would be a simple line on the income tax form and applied directly to each year's taxes. Such a system would provide fair treatment to all families and allow parents the freedom to make their choices about providing the best care for their children.
There are some obvious spin-off benefits to the family centre policy that the Reform Party is advocating. Parents provide the best nurturing environment for their children. Children who are raised in other environments are statistically more likely to engage in criminal activity, do poorly in school and become a burden on the social safety net. It is in the best interests of all Canadians, financially and otherwise, to ensure that children receive the best possible care available, the care that exists within the family.
I have pointed out areas of spending in which this Liberal government can find savings in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have described some basic ways to make the social programs currently directed at children more equitable while allowing parents more options.
Let us get out of the day care business, provide a fair tax system and allow families the freedom to make their own decisions. I believe that we need to put the needs and concerns of families first. We can achieve our deficit cutting goals, save our social safety net-
Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders
The Speaker
My colleague, you still have a few moments. Of course we will look forward to hearing the culmination of your remarks a little bit after Question Period.
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.
Dianne Brushett Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the logic of the defence of drunkenness when one Henri Daviault said he did not know what he was doing when he dragged a 65-year old women from her wheelchair and raped her.
When the highest court in Canada grants acquittal for rape based on drunkenness, women are set back 100 years to non-person status. This is insensitive and offensive. Drunkenness must not be an excuse to commit crimes against women.
On behalf of all women, I urge the justice minister to act swiftly to accept the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that dangerous intoxication be made a criminal offence.
Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has just announced that it is delaying for the second time the release of its final report. This report, which has already cost $58 million, will not be available until early in 1996. Aboriginal people faced with overwhelming poverty, unprecedented unemployment and suicide rates, and housing conditions which bring shame on Canada around the world, do not need additional studies.
While the commission studies the issues to death, the government makes piecemeal decisions or defers them until the commission submits its report, which will only state the obvious.
The $58 million would have been better used to build 1,000 houses. The minister should take action and give Natives the funds essential to their future, which a royal commission is now wasting.