Debates of Oct. 24th, 1994

Social Security Program

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Mercier-Unemployment.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked forward to rising and speaking in this debate for quite a while. I was one who spent a lot of time on his feet in the last Parliament debating the very principles that are on the floor today: what should be the central tenets of the country and the underlying principles that have led us, albeit with our problems, to be one of the greatest nations on earth.

I come from a region that for far too long has perhaps not shared in the greatness of the country, particularly its wealth. We have wealth in other areas with our culture, our history, our music and our people; but when it comes down to the things that put bread and butter on the table I speak from the perspective of a regional representative who has tried his very best, as have many before me, to impact on the policies of national governments in recognition of the fact that we live in a country that is regional in its nature.

The whole concept of social policy reform perhaps causes shivers up the spine of many individuals out there, even some provincial premiers who have to rely on a generous, well thought, rational program of social spending by the federal government, the government that has the tax power, to be able to deliver services of a national standard to the individuals they represent.

We have to go back a bit and talk about the development of social policy. Nearly every major program we have today has been the result of dialogue in this place and in public. Nearly every piece of progressive social legislation that we currently have up for debate in our social policy review has been dealing with programs that have been brought about by Liberal government initiatives.

We have to be careful when we criticize the process if we are not willing to understand the history of the party that teaches how to reform social programs. When I look back on the great history of the Liberal Party it is very clear that the Liberal Party tried very much to ensure that the country was not the same as the United States.

We recognized that the free market system had to grow and flourish but we believed that there were broader principles which had to monitor, had to temper the influence of the private sector and market forces in Canada. We were not the same as the Americans and we were not the same as some of the countries that we sought our early immigration from which were smaller and more compact.

We are one of the largest nations on earth and we have an uneven distribution of population. We have ten provincial and two territorial governments at this point. Through all of this as our country grew and as the great resources that God gave us in this great land were exploited, it was Liberal thinking, small l and big L , that said there is a fundamental responsibility of governments to ensure that the great wealth that is Canada is shared as equally as possible by all Canadians no matter where they live.

How do we do that? Do we just say if you are living in Alberta and they find oil in the ground you are going to do well perhaps for this generation or maybe the next, or 100 ago when you lived in Atlantic Canada and cod was plentiful and there were all kinds of money flowing into those households that did not have to share it? No, we believed collectively that we had a responsibility as government-our party believed that then and believes it today-to try to ensure that the wealth of this country is redistributed wherever possible to those individuals who are less prosperous today.

We have done that through social programs. We came in with unemployment insurance. We decided that we had to find some vehicle to transfer funds on a regular basis with a standard program and we came up with established program financing, EPF. That is how the federal government through its taxation powers takes moneys in and sends moneys back to the provinces to try to ensure a certain level of quality in the delivery of service in health care and post-secondary education.

The unemployment insurance system was initially put in place to ensure that workers who found themselves temporarily without employment were not going to have the bank come in and foreclose on the farm. It was meant to be an income supplement during that period of time until the individual could either retrain or find another job in the labour market and pay his or her bills.

We have had further progressions in social policy right up to the Constitution Act in which one of the fundamental characteristics of this country was set down as equalization. One of the major factors that distinguishes this country from others around the world is the fact that our Constitution says that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the provinces have the ability to deliver services of national standards, national quality, no matter what the fiscal situation of that province is.

Our social programs through old age security, through veterans' pensions, all of those programs have been an attempt by past governments to meet that fundamental commitment, that characteristic of Canadian society of equalizing the opportunity for all Canadians.

In a province like Nova Scotia some would say we rely to heavily on that. Maybe we do. Some say that perhaps the amounts of dollars transferred down have not met with the successes that were waiting there for them. I am one of those individuals who would agree.

I think it is high time we sit down and examine the vehicles. These programs are merely vehicles to deliver certain principles. It is also a time for us as Canadians to reaffirm the principles.

I know there are some on the Liberal Party side, perhaps even who sit in this Chamber, who believe we have to fight tooth and nail to maintain the vehicle. I do not think we have to do that. What we have to do in this period of fiscal restraint is redefine what we try to accomplish as governments.

Is the principle of equalization going to be maintained as one of the fundamental strands in the fabric of this country? I think most of the people in this place would say yes. Are we still going to try to take the wealth of this great country and ensure that individuals like me, the son of a coal miner who saw more pay days than pay cheques down in Cape Breton, can go to university because I have not been tuitioned right out of the picture? Does it make sure that somebody who lives in northern Ontario or downtown Vancouver or in Bay d'Espoir Newfoundland, when they have a problem with their health, does not have to worry about the size of their bank account, that quality health care is there?

We are facing major challenges. I think as this debate goes forward Canadians will reaffirm the principles that this country has been founded on, principles of fairness, of equal sharing of the resource, of caring for one another and a free market system altogether, all in one.

This reform that we talk about is essential. It is essential that we grapple with the real economic problems that we have today. It is also essential that these reforms are not dictated by any one region of this country.

Atlantic Canada is not western Canada. Alberta is not Newfoundland. Quebec is not Ontario. This is a country that is as distinct because of the differences that it has been able to accommodate internally as it is distinct by its geography and its people.

During this reform of social policy, during the debate that takes place, we must ensure that those principles that have been established, that have made this country great from sea to sea to sea, are reinvented. We say that is the foundation and if there is a better way for us to deliver those principles of equalization, of allowing as a people, each and every individual in this country, to develop to the fullest of their potential I will be on board for that.

I am afraid of change. I am afraid when I see two systems of UI being put on the table for debate that it means some of my fishermen in Atlantic Canada or the Gaspe may find themselves on the short end of that stick and I worry about that. I am worried that talk of cutting back on transfers through EPS to universities will mean that people who grew up or are growing up as I did with not very much money coming in for food let alone to put away for their children's university may not be able to get a quality education.

I am equally convinced, and this balances my concern, that as this debate goes forward one single thing will come out of it if nothing else and it will be that we will come back as a people and we will re-endorse and reaffirm those principles of equalization of the government allowing the free market system to flourish but at the same time using the resources of this great state, of this great nation, to ensure as best we can as mere mortals that those resources are put to work for the people of this country no matter where they live.

The debate is important. My voice I hope will be heard. My voice will probably be a voice of dissent on many of the things that are put on the table but I am not going to sit back and be critical and not participate in the process. That is one way the people I represent will not be heard and I am quite prepared. My voice can be loud at times. I may be small but I was blessed with good vocal cords. My voice on behalf of the people not just in Atlantic Canada but people right across this country is heard and that the desires they have that their government will be able to respond to their needs are materialized in a brand new social policy reform package and the vehicles that we choose to deliver are vehicles that will be efficient, that will deliver to the people who need it the most, and more than anything else will ensure that the next generation of Canadians, far too many of whom are living in poverty, will be able to look forward to a bright future in this great country.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been most fascinating coming to the House of Commons and dealing directly with people who are eminently qualified to speak for the Liberal Party as members of Parliament for the Liberals.

One of the difficult things I have encountered is that I do not seem to be able to get a straight answer to a very simple question and it reflects around the area of universality. Does the member actually believe in universality?

As I listened to the member's very eloquent speech it seemed to me that he, like most Liberals, is trying to have it both ways. The Liberals are saying we are going to have government intervention but we are going to have free market. Some of the things unfortunately are mutually exclusive.

I am not suggesting for a second that I do not believe in the basic concept of equalization and trying to even things out but we have developed this to such a science in Canada that we have reached the point at which we no longer can afford it.

I have a question with respect to universality. I believe this is the fourth time and the fourth member I have put this question to. I know the member is going to give me a straight answer to this question because he is such an upright looking gentleman. I can tell he is going to give me a straight answer.

Where are we going with this thing? Does the member actually believe in the concept of universality in which every single Canadian has equal access to all of the programs available? Or does the member believe, as the Reform Party believes, that we are going to have to target some of our social programs, that we are going to have to be selective and make sure that the people in Canada who are most in need will have those services available to them? In other words, that is the difference. Those two things are mutually exclusive-universality or are we going to be targeting our resources because that is not universality? Which is it?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I could send him over a dictionary. That might be a quicker response.

To the member for Kootenay East, on university I think everything is on the table, to be quite honest. When I see that there are over 1.5 million Canadian children living in poverty that tells me that the dollars we are spending are not hitting the mark. When I see individuals who have to live below the poverty line, who have worked hard to build this country because the dollars have been spread too thin, then I do not think those are the types of programs I want to see continued.

When I see single parents, primarily women who cannot get out into the workforce because they have children at home, who cannot get a hand up because the money available to the programs we are maintaining keeps them down and ensures a cycle of poverty, of non-productivity both economically and at a complete destruction of self-worth, I am prepared to listen to anybody in this country who would go back to the basic principal of equalized opportunity.

Quite frankly, I would not be here today if it were not for those social programs. Maybe most members of the Reform Party would, but I do not think so. I know the backgrounds of some of those individuals. They have chosen public life. Many of them were not brought up with a silver spoon and many of them did get the benefit of a university education because of transfers to their home provinces for education. I know that. Does that mean that everything we have today has to stay the same? I would say no.

He asked me if I believe in universality. I do for some programs. There are some programs I do not think can be cut without damaging the fabric of the country. On health care, do I want a user pay system? No, I do not. I know the Reform Party does not either. We want to maintain that as an essential piece of the fabric of this country.

I am prepared to sit down on each and every program. I am not prepared to do what some on the other benches, most notably the Reform Party and the right wing would do, which is simply to do across the board cuts.

When we look at these things we have to use the ingenuity I know members of this Chamber have to develop vehicles that would allow for the majority of assistance that is available be targeted to those individuals who need it the most. We all know that it diminishes on a daily basis. However, does that mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water? I think not. I think the baby has to do with a little less water in the tub.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions or at least to make a few comments on the hon. member for Dartmouth's speech.

I have worked with the hon. member on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. First of all, I must say that I find most interesting his concern that the paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development might possibly create two categories of unemployed, when he says that the chronically unemployed apply for UI benefits two and three times over a five-year period.

Yet, coming from maritime regions, we both know that our constituents are directly involved in, and directly affected by, this. There is even more cause for concern considering that we had an inkling of the Minister of Human Resources Development's reform earlier this year with the UI changes made this spring, for example, when the qualifying period was increased from 10 to 12 weeks.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this, to know if there are lobster fishermen in his region who, since cod fishing is forbidden under the moratorium, have nothing else to fish. To qualify for unemployment insurance, they need 12 weeks of work. Every one knows that in maritime ridings, lobster fishing is subject to a natural constraint, since the season is only 10 weeks long. Now that is very interesting.

The last point I would like the hon. member for Dartmouth to consider is equalization payments, when he says that the federal government has taxing powers to regulate, to administer its so-called national social programs.

The problem, as I see it, is that the minister already has a figure in mind as regards the extent of the cuts. He is trying to say which program or program component he would like to cut. This sounds like a dangerous approach to me because welfare recipient are left out in the cold. Making programs disappear, or reducing the assistance provided under such a program, and I will conclude on this, will not make welfare recipients disappear.

This means that the provinces will have to pay out of their own pockets. Equalization does not work if Quebec or Ontario, for example, see the percentage of welfare recipients they have to provide assistance to on their own increase all of a sudden. Because if there is a freeze in federal spending levels, equalization will not work. These were the comments I wanted to make.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I certainly enjoy working with the member for Gaspé on the fisheries committee. We share many of the same concerns. Our mother tongue may be different, but our regions are not that dissimilar and our interests are pretty similar.

I want to pick up on one thing. The member indicated that the federal government has the authority to provide equalization, to try to equalize the opportunities for Canadians. I would go one further. Since his party is very concerned about constitutions and constitutional status, I would like to inform him that it is not just the authority, it is a constitutional requirement. Whatever cuts are made to social policy as a result of the ballooning deficit, every cut must be looked at to see whether or not, in accordance with the Constitution, it has increased or decreased disparity in the country. That is one of the things that is a fall back for us. The Constitution provides for that.

With respect to the other question he asked dealing with UI, it is a major problem. One of the things we have to do is stop handing out the dough. It is a bit like a narcotic. If you have a pain in your arm and you do not treat the cause of the pain but keep giving the drug for the pain pretty soon you forget about the pain but you keep needing the drug.

We have to try to deal with diminishing dollars and address the real problem. We have to restructure the fishery so that the individuals left in the core fishery can make a decent living off it and never again see the fishery as a way, through licensing, to qualify for UIC. Unfortunately that is what has happened in the past. People who have a licence should be able to make a good

living at lobster, at groundfish, at whatever, but we have spread it far too thin.

In conclusion, I agree. I have those concerns. I look forward to reading the input from his town hall forums that he is going to be holding on social policy reform and what his people are saying on it. Perhaps we can sit down and see how close together both our communities are on the need for this type of restructuring.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to address the House on this most important matter of reforming our social programs.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development and his parliamentary secretary for having the courage to put forward this most-needed initiative.

I will restrict my comments to two areas. First, why do we need social policy reform? Second, what are the principles which should direct these changes and what are the objectives we want to achieve?

On October 14 and 15 I held two sets of public consultations in my riding of Timiskaming-French River, one in Kirkland Lake and one in Haileybury, probably the first public forums on the social reforms in the country. About 100 constituents attended the forums and 26 individuals and organizations presented briefs.

There was unanimous agreement on the need for social reform and toward the objectives outlined in the minister's discussion paper. There was also a broad consensus on the kind of reforms needed to achieve these goals. The best way to demonstrate the need for reform is to give three examples of situations which came up at the hearings.

The first example is one of a young couple with two children, both earning salaries just above minimum wage. After allowing for child care expenses, travel, income taxes, an increase in geared to income rent, we found that the net income for this couple was $150 less a week than if they had been on social assistance. This is wrong and totally unacceptable. In addition, the young couple have lost their drug and dental assistance plan. Geared to income housing rental is based on gross revenue before factoring in income taxes and all the work related expenses. In effect, a working couple earning a net income of $1,000 a month will pay more in rent than a couple on social assistance receiving $1,200 a month. I find this unfair.

We are telling those Canadians who have the pride and self-motivation to go out and find work that if they do go out and work, we will penalize them.

The second example is one of a man who is married and has four children. He is fairly well-qualified but was unable to find a permanent job. He had to go on social assistance to support his family. He decided to put an ad in the paper to find part time work and earned $800 gross in a one-month period as a self-employed carpenter.

This gentleman reported his earnings to the welfare board. Not only did they deduct all but $50 from his cheque, they did not allow any expenses related to his job, such as advertising. This is very important. They even informed this gentleman that if he put another ad in the paper, he would be considered self-employed and be taken off the payroll altogether. Is this the kind of social policy the country needs at this time?

The third example is one of a young, single mother with two children. This young woman is on social assistance but wants to go to school. She wants to get back into the work force. Because she lives in a rural area where child care is unavailable and she has no means of transportation, she cannot go back to school and re-train.

Our reforms should, and I hope will, address the special needs of those Canadians living in rural areas so they too can benefit from the increased opportunities which will hopefully result from these reforms. It is clear that reforms are badly needed. The response to the government's initiative on my constituents was simple. It is about time.

A recent COM-PAS poll suggested that 91 per cent of respondents want social assistance recipients to be given the opportunity-I am not saying to be forced-to re-train or to do community work. Seventy per cent agreed that social benefits should be re-targeted to the most needy.

What are the principles that should guide us as we embark on these most urgently needed reforms? First, we must ensure that we maintain a social safety net, an income level sufficient for those most vulnerable. We must preserve this compassionate, caring, society that makes us the envy of the world. We must tackle child poverty and encourage self-confidence and personal initiative. We must also ensure these programs are within our means by ending waste, duplication and abuse. We must do this in order to guarantee the future affordability of these programs.

However, the main thrust of these reforms is about jobs and growth. The best social program, as our Prime Minister has said many times, is a decent job that does not only ensure Canadians the means to sustain themselves, but also restores in them confidence and the dignity of work. Félix Leclerc, one of our most prominent singers and authors, once said: "The best way to assassinate somebody is to give him nothing to do."

According to another saying, idleness is the root of all evil. By doing everything to put Canadians back to work or to train them, we will not only ensure the future viability of our social programs but also solve at the same time a host of social problems such as family violence and alcoholism.

This is what these reforms are all about, giving Canadians the tools such as child care, retraining and counselling, so that they can get out of the dependency rut and back into productive society.

This reform is about creating opportunity instead of dependency. This reform is about asking all governments-federal, provincial, municipal, employers, and more important the recipients of social programs-to share responsibility. We need programs that are going to be more flexible, adapted to people instead of to the bureaucrats that administer them.

I believe very strongly in the principles and objectives as set out in the discussion paper. I intend to continue to consult with my constituents so that together we will find a strategy to renew and improve our social safety net. Together we will find the courage to implement the changes needed to build a better society where people will have self-confidence and the dignity of a job. Together we will build a society that will continue to be the envy of the world into the next century.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the hon. member's observation that reform is badly needed in the country. Amen to that.

I agree also with his observation that the best social program is a job. If he believes that or if his government believes that, why then does it persist in its destructive anti-employment policy of taxing the life out of the Canadian economy in order to maintain its spendthrift habits? Is this not an unreasonable approach?

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

I thank the hon. member for his support. We need reform but we do not need the Reform Party.

But having said that, I have had occasion to talk to the hon. member many times on a lot of issues and we share similar views.

The government certainly believes that job creation should be the number one priority. This is what reform is all about, not only this social policy reform but the document tabled by the finance minister and the upcoming document of the Minister of Industry. All our red book and other programs are geared toward creating jobs, creating opportunities.

We moved in the first budget to remove some of the disincentives that impact on job creation. We reduced UI premiums, and hopefully with constructive suggestions from both opposition parties and from government members, we will find better ways to put Canadians back to work.

It is not only a question of dollars. I know that members of the Reform Party always think money. We Liberals think about people. Putting people back to work is not only saving a dollar or getting more revenue in income tax, it restores to Canadians the dignity of being able to be self-sufficient. To do that, we have to give them the tools.

Right now, as I mentioned in my speech, people have many disincentives to going back to work. They are discouraged from going back to work. Hopefully, with these reforms, we will be able to give them the tools they need to get back to work.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the speech by the member of the government party.

As you may recall, in the last nine years of the Conservative government, on several occasions when reforms were proposed by the former government, the Liberals-then the Official Opposition-did a very good job. They gained the trust of the Canadian people, who brought them to power. Unfortunately, I think that the government misled the population. May I remind you of former Tory minister Valcourt's UI reform, which created a scandal here in this House.

The Conservatives caused a significant rise in the deficit which, of course, the current government promised to reduce. Everyone, I think, agrees that the deficit should be cut. However, reducing the deficit at the expense of the poor is unacceptable. The people do not want the deficit to be reduced at the expense of the poor.

Last week, the Minister of Finance told us that, although the Bloc Quebecois agrees that the deficit should be cut, there is no other way to bring in the new money that would reduce it. I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance and we submitted to the committee chairman and to the Minister of Finance, on several occasions, adequate solutions that would allow the government to find additional funds.

We also asked the government to cut into the fat of public expenditures, in the right place, namely the other house, commonly known as the Senate. It still costs the government $628 million a year, including all staff.

As you may recall, a minister in this government made a return trip in the same day at a cost of $173,000.

As you may recall, the Prime Minister decided-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Sorry, but speeches are limited to 10 minutes and subject to a five-minute question and comment period. It is very short.

Since I want to allow as many members as possible to participate in today's debate, I will let the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River give a short reply, please.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this will be very short. I thank the hon. member for his statement.

I can summarize their philosophy very briefly. I think that they want to keep Canadian and Quebec families in perpetual poverty because that is what you do when you give them a cheque every month and tell them to stay home and do nothing. For a year, I have heard members of the Bloc Quebecois tell us to stop duplication, that is how we will save money. That is what we are trying to do with these reforms.

For a year, I have heard Bloc members tell us to tax the rich. That is what we want to do with the education reform. We want to stop subsidizing the sons of lawyers and give to those who really need it.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about a philosophy of governing today. The philosophy is called incrementalism. I want to relate this philosophy to the social policy review.

To illustrate, I want to tell members a story. I know how they enjoy a good relevant story. There was a woman who wanted to buy a chicken so she went into a country store where the store owner had a big sign that offered lots of chickens for sale.

The store owner did not tell the lady that he really only had one scrawny chicken left at the back of the store. He offered to catch one of his many chickens and went back into the chicken coop. When he got there he banged a few walls, made some clucking noises and came back with his only chicken.

"That will be $5. Thank you very much". The lady answered: "That chicken looks a little thin. Do you think I could have a different one?" The merchant did not know quite what to do but he was a fellow with a fair bit of gall and a lot of nerve so he kept that stiff upper lip and went back into the coop.

He raised some dust and he hit a few more walls. He made some more clucking noises. He fluffed up the chicken's feathers, turned it around on the plate, took it back out to the lady and said: "That will be $10, please". The lady said: "I don't know. That one looks a little thin, too. I think I better take them both".

This is a great analogy to this social policy review that we are going through.

The Liberals during the last election made a great many promises. They said: "We have many chickens in our coops. In fact, all it will cost you is the election. Trust us. Vote us in and we will bring back your chicken". In fact, on October 10 last year the Globe and Mail quoted the Prime Minister as saying: ``Let me win the election and after that you come and ask me questions about how I will run the government''.

The poor taxpayer bought into the government claims. The taxpayer then said: "Okay, now we have elected you. Just go back into your coop and bring out a nice chicken for us. Let us see what you have". The minister went away and consulted with special interest groups, with his political friends and I suppose some other people and came back with a chicken for the taxpayer. This chicken has a name. Its name is "Agenda: Jobs and Growth". It is a book full of suggestions but it does not have any plans. It especially has no costing to its vague proposals.

Canadians took one look at this poor excuse for a chicken and said: "This is one mighty scrawny chicken. There is no meat on it. How are Canadians possibly going to get a meal from this chicken"?

Allow me to quote what some Canadians have actually said. The Vanier Institute on the Family said: "It does not show an awful lot of commitment by the government at this time to any one of the options put forth". The Caledon Institute of Social Policy said: "It is on the whole thin on specifics".

The Toronto Star said: ``It is surprisingly timid, vague and short of essential information. It does not contain a single proposal that could be described as original or daring''. The paper was panned by the premiers of B.C. and Saskatchewan and endorsed by only one lonely premier. The premier of Ontario called it an insult.

The chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said: "It is a bit of a pig in a poke". Apparently, he likes the pork analogy better than he likes my chicken story.

Canadians have had a good look at this chicken now. As the poll on the weekend showed, they like the general idea of cutbacks, but they want to see some more specifics.

However the store owner, the Minister of Human Resources Development, has the same kind of gall as that other store owner. He is going to say: "Okay, another chicken you want, another chicken you will get". He will go back into his chicken coop, make some more political noise, fluff up the feathers of his poor old chicken and bring it out for the taxpayer to see. Do you know what? It will be the same old chicken only it will cost more through higher taxes.

The Liberals delayed this social policy review for nine months before bringing it out. They finally brought it forward and it says virtually nothing. Why are we surprised? It is not the Liberal way to say anything. It is the Liberal way to delay, to study, to talk and to talk and after much fanfare raise the taxes and take the tiniest baby steps toward any kind of resolution of all the problems we are currently experiencing.

I want members to know something. Initially, some taxpayers will accept the government's tiny incremental solutions because at least there is the appearance of change. It is only when taxpayers realize that they need both chickens for their pot, specific plans for social policy change and action on the debt and deficit, that the government will be exposed for what it really is.

What will the minister say when the bluff is called? He will be speechless. It is hard to imagine but I think he will be speechless. He will stand there with empty hands and empty pockets and say: "I'm sorry. All along we only had that one scrawny chicken. The real chicken is a skinny one. We have nothing to deal with the debt and deficit that is in fact destroying our social programs".

The Liberal government has ruled this country for generations. It has always proceeded in these careful half-step fashions. Mackenzie King was a classic Liberal. His words "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" are a perfect example of a Liberal statement. Liberals balance artfully on the fence, careful not too move too fast, careful not to offend. But while the Liberals sit and think and be careful, problems are building up like floodwaters behind the dam.

What are these problems? Examples are everywhere. Serious changes are required in the UI system, changes that Reformers have advocated for some years now. Restoring UI to a self-sustaining insurance type program, funded, controlled and administered by the workers and employers who use it.

For example, there is the new health care review. Change was promised a year ago, promised again in the spring, promised again this fall by a Prime Minister who last week found out that the provinces, health care's largest player, the player that Reformers say should have even more freedom to administer health care programs, will not even participate in this latest $12 million study. Imagine, $12 million and 22 more people to study and review the system for another year. Health care will be close to death by that time.

This goes across the board. The Minister of Public Service Renewal gave a speech a year ago telling the public service that change is coming, but do not worry we are still reviewing and studying. The GST changes are still under review. Tax reform is needed but under review. The $58 million royal commission on aboriginal peoples is delayed for another six months.

If there is no action in our year old social programs a year from now they will be in a far worse situation even if the economy continues to do well. Our debt will have grown in a year by another $40 billion. The likelihood that all will go as planned is small. Life is never ideal. We are in a position of tremendous risk.

All it would take is a slight downturn in the economy, a small jump in the interest rates, to decimate our social programs instead of managing the change now in an orderly fashion.

The government often accuses Reform of a lack of compassion, for wanting to act now on social program reform. Is it really a show of compassion to add another $100 billion of debt on to the country? Is it truly compassionate to force working Canadians to pay more and more of their pay cheques in taxes funnelled to foreigners, money for which they will never receive any kind of a spinoff however indirect, to force more and more jobs out of the economy as Canada becomes less and less competitive because of its debt, to gradually whittle away our civil service and our social programs because more and more must go to pay the interest?

The bank does not care if you have good food on your table as long as you are able to pay your mortgage. In the same way the world investment community could not care less if Canada has any social programs or government jobs or anything else, period, as long as we pay the interest on our debt.

Liberal incrementalism hurts Canadians and that is why Reform rejects their course of action. It is an act of compassion to swallow the tough medicine right now, to make the changes now from further reliance on the federal government and to greater rewards for personal initiatives, for a greater reliance on family ties and on local institutions in our communities, and then finally the personal freedom that can only come from a lower level of taxation.

That is why Reform says we need to balance the budget during the term of this Parliament. That is what we call tough love for our country.

What used to be a clear governing philosophy of incrementalism has even changed of late. Andrew Coyne of the Globe and Mail says of this government's proposals: ``Behind the generalities lurks a government that is scared to death. It is not the fear that inspires but the fear that transfixes the deadly paralysis of the rabbit in the cobra's gaze''.

I believe the Liberals are no longer even incrementalists. They are simply afraid to move, paralysed by problems on the one hand and the titillations of power on the other.

I suggest that it is time to have courage and seize the opportunity. I would like to quote a bit of Shakespeare just to lighten the atmosphere. It goes like this and it is familiar. I am sure Mr. Speaker knows it by heart. It states:

There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken in the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves Or lose our ventures.

The great floodtide of opportunity is flowing. The time to ride its crest is now. Change will never be easier than today but three more years of discussion papers and reviews may totally ruin our social system.

Liberals will forever regret passing up the golden opportunity to address these problems in last year's federal budget. They will regret passing up today's golden opportunity of economic growth and their party may well break up if the economy founders on the debt. Then a gale force wind will sweep political change over this land and the Reform Party, fully matured and mindful of the long term interests of the country, will be there to pick up the pieces and preserve the essentials of our social safety net.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In that same spirit of humour, I do not know if I liked the story about the chickens better or Shakespeare's quote.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Fraser Valley East with great interest.

When he was talking about pork and chickens I could not help but think of ham and eggs. He is quite a ham and a lot of the ideas the Reform Party has is like laying big eggs.

I would like to pick up on two points the member raised. First, the Reform Party makes much ado about referenda, listening to the people and responding to what people are telling it. In fact what we are doing in this consultation process of the government is listening to the people.

When the member gets a chance to respond I wonder if he will attempt to square the Reform Party's position vis-à-vis referenda and the need to listen to people with what we are doing as a government to consult with the public to put out in front of Canadians serious options, not just fuzzy ideas.

An example is the second part of my question. In my riding I have the wonderful city of Elliot Lake which has recently gone through a major transformation. Part of that transformation, because of changes in the local economy, has included thousands of seniors moving to the community. We have an opportunity through the options put forward by the minister to engage Canadians who are now maybe on unemployment insurance or welfare to contribute back to the community and help us keep our seniors safe in their homes.

The minister's proposals have given us an opportunity to be creative, have given direction, and I can hardly imagine how the member could respond by suggesting that these options are nothing less than very concrete proposals for the future.

I would ask him to deal with those two points if he would.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues, one which is close to every Reformer's heart, the issue of referendums. Referendums are one way of determining in a very final way what the people in the country want to do as far as taxes, expenses, priorities, things they want to get a handle on such as capital punishment issues, things that are burning in the nation's craw, so to speak.

I have no problem whatsoever with squaring the idea of listening to the people. A couple of days ago, and this is not a referendum, polls indicated 90 per cent of people want action on social policy reform. When do they want it? We could start the chant: when do they want it?-now. When are they asking for it?-now. It has been a year and nothing has happened.

If you were to go to the people and ask if they were prepared for a change, if you wanted to go, if people wanted to initiate a referendum, they would approve massive changes now.

What they will not approve is the other side of the equation where the Minister of Finance continues to fudge on whether to tax RRSPs. Take that to a referendum. People would say absolutely not, reduce government spending, that is how we are going to handle this deficit problem.

I have no trouble figuring it out or relying on the people in the country through the use of a referendum. Referendums, I think, will back up what the Reform Party has been saying all along which is that people want control of the debt and deficit and they want it now. They expect the government to control them through cutting expenses, not through additional tax increases.

Not only would they often approve such things in a referendum but it would give that impetus to the government to say not only do they want it to in a poll, they ordered it to do it and what could be more unifying to the country than that force from coast to coast saying we should get on with the necessary changes now. Referendums are not a problem. We could certainly do that easily.

As far as having creative ideas, all ideas are welcome when a community goes through massive changes. All ideas have to be brought forward on the table. In the paper on jobs and growth pensions are not even mentioned. That is what the citizens of Elliot Lake would like to have more discussion on than what this paper offers.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate today and surely the chickens are coming home to roost.

If the parliamentary channel were to be seen in the other place, and I do not mean heaven-and it probably is for hours and hours of the day-you could bet one thing. All those Liberals, and the place would be full of them, would be rolling over in their graves right now. What we are talking about is how we are going unscramble an omelette. How are we going to make right what the Liberals did 35 years ago in order to buy their power and success with our money? That is what is all boils down to.

We, ladies and gentlemen in television land, are the ones who brought this upon ourselves. The Liberals and the Conservatives, in order to get re-elected or elected, determined the best way to do it was to buy us with our own money. The chicken has come home to roost. Our responsibility, this Parliament, I and my colleagues, are charged with the great responsibility to somehow do this to keep our country whole and to ensure that future generations of Canadians grow up in a spirit and attitude of confidence, self-worth and self-respect.

How are we going to do it? My hon. colleague from Elliot Lake talked about ham and eggs which reminded me of story of a pig and a chicken walking down the road. They are walking down the road and the pig said to the chicken: "Chicken, I am getting a little hungry". The chicken said: "So am I. Do you think we should stop for breakfast?". The pig asked: "What do you think we should have?". The chicken said: "Why don't we have ham and eggs?". The pig thought for a minute and said: "Chicken, when you say ham and eggs, the eggs from you are a donation, from me the ham is a commitment". That is what Canadians need and are looking for today. They are looking for commitment.

There is absolutely nothing as disheartening as going into a period of uncertainty and looking at the captain of the ship and the captain is looking at somebody else to lead. Our country is on stormy waters even as we speak. We need a government, we must have a government, that will take the initiative and do what it is paid to do, lead. The time for studying, navel gazing discussion is long past. We are in serious trouble today and dreaming about it and wishing are not going to change a thing.

There may be some of us here in this House who do not agree with the American philosopher Ayn Rand, but I think all of us would agree with at least this one truism, that you must deal with things as they are, not as you would wish them to be. If we reflect in our daily lives, we know that no matter how difficult the situation we may face from day to day, the minute that we start dealing with the problem it starts getting better.

We know what the problems are in our economy. We know what got us here. Surely we know that the first step is the most difficult to get us out of this mess and that is the chronic overspending of all levels of government.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one aspect of this social policy review, unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance started 35 or so years ago with the noblest of intentions. The idea was that unemployment insurance would help those who lost their jobs tide them over until they were to get a new job. It is a noble idea. Who would disagree with that? It was to be paid for by the people who would use it-insurance. It would be paid for by the companies that hired employees, and employers.

When unemployment insurance started in Canada it consumed 0.9 per cent of our gross domestic product.

That is, of the value of all the goods and services that were produced in our country, unemployment insurance was 0.9 per cent. In 1992-93 unemployment insurance was 3 per cent of our gross domestic product. It had increased from $60 million a year to around $20 billion. No one got up one morning and said we should turn unemployment insurance into something that is not going to work, or will not be what we wanted it to be in the first place.

It gradually, incrementally, took on other responsibilities. It became a method whereby we were able to redistribute income throughout the nation. As it stands today all across the country dependent upon the unemployment rate, it is possible to get unemployment insurance. For instance, in a place with 16 per cent unemployment I think one needs to work 10 weeks a year to get approximately 39 weeks of benefits. If the unemployment in Canada averages 10 per cent, people need to work for, I believe, 15 weeks to get 30 weeks of benefits. It has absolutely no relation to insurance.

Now we have a suggestion in this book-whatever its colour-to change the name, to call it employment insurance. Think about it for a minute. We do not like what unemployment insurance has become, so let us change the name. Let us call it employment insurance. Why do we not call it unfire insurance then? Or let us call it uncollision insurance. Let us do whatever we have to do, but for goodness sake let us not deal with the problem as it is.

Let us obfuscate the problem. Let us somehow bury the problem so we do not have to deal with it as it is. The Forge commission years ago was charged with exactly this responsibility, to make unemployment insurance unemployment insurance. What did we as parliamentarians do? We decided the Canadian people were not ready for these radical reforms such as pay as you go, and it was put back on the shelves.

We do not have to go into a great navel gazing exercise in order to figure out what is wrong with unemployment insurance. All we have to do is make it insurance. There are two aspects to this. There is the aspect of the employer and the employee. Our system has become so generous and so easy to get into that employers, when faced with the decision of letting someone go, find it much easier to look someone in the eye and say "we are laying you off, we do not have enough work", than it is to say "you are out of here because a) you do not show up on time, b) you have not made an effort when you are here, c) you do not groom yourself properly" or whatever.

It is much easier to say "we are going to lay you off". What does that do? That is a tax on everybody else who is working. Does that do anything for the person being fired? It does absolutely nothing.

When someone in our unemployment insurance maze happens for whatever reason to get laid off or perhaps fired, what happens? When people are laid off through no fault of their own, the waiting period is fairly short and they are able to claim benefits right away, as it should be. When people quit they are supposed to be in a situation in which they cannot claim benefits for an extended period of time. They can still claim benefits but it takes a while.

In reality what happens? An employer fires someone and so they go to their local unemployment insurance office and say they were fired. They are asked why they were fired. The person replies: "I do not know. I should not have been fired. I am the greatest employee ever ".

They therefore go to the referee. The person who fired them has to go through a long and involved process of saying why they fired them. Then they have to go to a committee of three people to justify it. Otherwise the person has recourse to say that he or she was laid off.

All this does not do anything to strengthen the insurance aspect of what we are talking about. It would be relatively simple in many of the great problems we have if we boiled it down to some very straightforward essentials.

A basic mandate in everything we do is that it must be fair and have equity. Fairness and equity must be the underlying values in everything we do in social policy review including unemployment insurance. We must inculcate with everyone-employer, employee, parent and child-a sense of personal responsibility for our successes and our failures in life.

If we were to do so, we would go a long way in establishing a sense of self-sufficiency, self-confidence and self-worth in ourselves as individuals. It is up to everyone as individuals to make their way in life; it is not up to the government to do it for anyone.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great respect to the comments of the hon. member.

After listening to the first story about the chicken and then the story about the chicken and the pork that were side by each going down the road and after hearing comments from previous speakers across the way, I remembered, coming from Atlantic Canada, that in many cases we were very fortunate to have the slim or the thin chicken in our pot of stew. Sometimes those comments scare me. I wonder whether we would have anything to put in the pot if we were to listen to some of the comments of the Reform Party.

I want to direct a question to the hon. colleague across the way. Has he read the green book, the paper of the Minister of Human Resources Development that was tabled a week or so ago now? Does he realizes that the minister invited consultation? Does he intend to go to his constituents and say this is an opportunity for them to participate, to have input and to have their input respected as the input of other members of the Reform Party and of other parties in the House will be respected by the minister, the department and the government?

The opportunity for consultation, the opportunity that Canadians were crying out for, has been lacking for many years. They want to be part of a participatory government. Then we have it and, if we listen to the Reform Party, it is saying: "Make up your mind tomorrow, dictate to Canadians, and forget about consultation".

I am somewhat confused when I hear such comments because I believe that what Canadians want is participatory government. That is what Canadians want in my constituency, in Atlantic Canada, and I suspect in other parts of Canada. The Minister of Human Resources Development has given them the opportunity to be part of it. He has given you the opportunity to be part of it, Mr. Speaker, and every member of the House.

Let us get to constructive input that will help the department and the minister bring about a social program that is not only good for all Canadians but supportable to all Canadians.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to tell residents of Edmonton in general and Edmonton Southwest specifically that the meeting at which we will be discussing this subject will take place on November 7 at 7.30 p.m. at the Royal West Edmonton Inn as part of our ongoing discussions and deliberations with constituents.

The hon. member mentioned dependence and consultation. Consultations must be more than a feel good, giant warm fuzzy smurf ball that we are throwing out and let us all hug it and think we are doing something.

There has to be a specific purpose to what we are doing. Before we can consult on the benefits of one program versus another, let us put some costs up front, let us attach some costs to it. Who in business would decide to go down plan a or plan b without first determining where plan a is starting and finishing? That is what is missing in the whole consultation review.

I have lived in the maritimes and have some considerable sympathy for what people have talked about in an area of the country considered to be chronically depressed. I do not think that is true. I do not think the maritimes are chronically depressed. As a matter of fact it is interesting to note that the Bank of Nova Scotia did not start in Toronto; it started in the maritimes. The wealth and power that existed in the maritimes for many years have gradually progressed eastward to Toronto and are concentrated in southern Ontario.

If I were a person living in the maritimes I would be on my feet screaming for a triple E Senate to give my region at least some power and say in the national decision making of the country. That fairness in the triple E Senate will go a lot further to putting the maritimes in a stronger financial position than all the equalization payments forever which have done nothing.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on revising our social programs.

There have been questions in the House about the consultation process and some assertions that it is not genuine. There have also been statements that the discussion paper is out of touch with Canadians. Some have even said Canadians do not want to overhaul our social support system, while others have argued that Canadians want major reductions in our social programs.

I will deal with both those arguments, not by using conjecture or my own opinion but by using the results of a public forum on the future of social programs held in Edmonton East in June. The results of the forum were submitted to the government before the discussion paper was finalized. I am happy to report that the document tabled this month reflects much of what my constituents said. It is in touch with Canadians.

By way of background, in my first speech here I indicated Edmonton East is a microcosm of Canada in many ways. We have a very diverse population with a mixture of occupations, income levels, social and cultural backgrounds. All this diversity is similar to the diversity of Canada and was represented at the forum. The group had in common a desire to do what was best for local communities, what would best meet the needs of all people there. That is also the basic value that Canadians hold.

It is significant there was general agreement that our social programs needed to be revamped to accommodate current realities. I heard two general themes that night. One was an appreciation for Canada's history of social programs as a good way to demonstrate caring and to build community. No one said to do away with them. Second were suggestions for modifications and improvements. No one defended the status quo as good enough.

There were differences of opinion, lots of them, as there are across the country. Even more, there was an appreciation that the government is ready to tackle the problem, not to destroy our heritage but to improve on it. The residents of Edmonton East also put forward some general directions for improving what we have and a number of specific suggestions. I am happy to report to the House that the discussion paper includes many of the suggestions. Let me highlight a few.

It was no surprise that increasing employment opportunities was a high priority in every discussion group. "Training is not much good without jobs", said one participant and others agreed. More worthy of note was the recognition that there is a positive role for government to play in job creation in partnership with the private sector and local communities. No one can solve the problem alone.

Of particular value for the coming months of debate in the House was the willingness of my constituents to recognize and to deal with the bigger question of how we define and distribute work in Canada. They want to see a better sharing of employment opportunities. They want to see that people who contribute to building our communities have adequate resources for their basic needs whether they contribute through traditional jobs or by doing the work that needs to be done, such as caring for children or community work.

They recognize our economy may have a shortage of paid jobs but there is a lot of work to be done in the country. They said volunteer work was productive work and should be recognized by federal programs. They also recognize that employers sometimes exploit employees because the lack of jobs makes them vulnerable. "There is no accountability for employers in the present circumstances", said one participant.

Going one step further, we as a society need to come to grips with new ways to share the dignity of work and its just rewards. "Overtime should not be allowed when so many people go unemployed", said one person. Others questioned the belief that being home with children is no longer considered acceptable work. We look forward to the proposals that will come from the task force currently working on the question of distribution of work in our society.

Another strong theme was the need to improve training programs and educational opportunities. Residents show an incredible wisdom. They care about the quality of the programs and getting good value for their tax dollar, not about who delivers them.

Portable skills, on the job training and life skills were all suggestions that found their place in the discussion paper. One specific suggestion was apprenticeships for women at any age, recognizing that they may be re-entering the workforce after raising children. More opportunities for less academically oriented youth was another emphasis. We do not need just more access to university but more diverse kinds of education to develop the many different skills of our young people and help them find their niche in a global economy.

In addition to improving the quality of individual programs, residents want better linkages between jobs, programs and services. Income support programs need to be linked with training programs and training programs with real job potential. "Many of the good programs are too small", said one group. Several groups suggested replacing fragmented programs with a mix of guaranteed annual income and guaranteed employment.

The participants in the Edmonton East forum understood that cheap is not the same as efficient. They recognize that adequate support is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. We need to invest in people if we want them to invest in building our country. People must be able to meet their basic needs in order to be productive, learn new skills or care for children.

Of particular importance in our debate is the emphasis on the needs of children and the importance of giving children a good start in life. To me an important test of the success of our revision of social programs will be whether or not children living in poverty in my riding are better off. Maybe Premier Kline can close his eyes to what is happening on the streets of my city. I cannot. I see poor children who are too hungry to learn well. Last week I met school children who are without warm enough clothing to go out and plant tulips in the Canada Remembers Program.

Everything is not all right in Alberta and that is not the vision of Canada we want for our children. Some may not see the connection between substandard housing, unemployment, frustrated young people and public safety. The residents of my riding know the connection because they live with it every day. They know what it takes to build strong communities and that is what they want governments to invest in.

That leads me to the last but perhaps the strongest theme I heard: the importance of community support, non-financial support. An income cheque does not create security. Young people and seniors need a sense of belonging and involvement in their community rather than isolation and alienation. Young families and children need more than money. They need community support for the important task of raising the next generation.

Edmonton is known for its strong neighbourhood associations and its many community run agencies that respond to local needs and help to build local community networks. This network is under severe distress, thanks to drastic provincial cuts without consulting the people affected by them. Ironically it is especially in times of uncertainty and rapid change like we are living through today that every community needs some social support services and networks.

The participants in the Edmonton East forum want the federal government to take an active role in co-operation with cities and local communities that know what needs to be done. If we do not want people to fall through the cracks and become dependent on federal government handouts, we must ensure that local communities, not just provinces, have a voice in deciding what kind of social support network is effective.

Focus on local action, residents told me, not national committees or endless federal-provincial consultations. It is community networks for example which provide young people with a sense of belonging that leads away from crime to safer streets.

Perhaps our fixation on federal-provincial relations is too narrow. Perhaps communities, especially our large urban ones, should have a more direct voice when it comes to the social development of our country. The people in my riding are concerned that we are losing that sense of community that built this country and they want to rebuild it. This is the most important goal for our revitalization of Canada's social programs.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member was in the House when I last asked this question about universality so she will know where I am coming from.

It must be said again and again that the Reform Party stands for ensuring that our country has the ability to be able to take care of those in our society who are most in need, the kind of people the member was just talking about.

However, with the greatest of respect to the other Liberal members who have responded to this question, I have yet to get what I consider to be a straight answer to the question.

Perhaps we could rephrase the question with respect to universality and say this. If we define universality as being programs that are not only available to all members of Canadian society, but that in fact just automatically come out to members of Canadian society, and if we recognize the problems, the difficulties that we have developed in Canada as a result of this process, and the fact that we are going to have to target to make sure that people who have the most need, whether it is old age security, health care, education, or whatever the process is, maybe we could define it and come down to something more precise.

Specifically, which programs would the member want to ensure remain under this universality blanket in its broadest sense? That way, rather than just a simple yes or no we can have a sense on where the member would see this going on the basis of the input that she has had from her constituents.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think universality is perhaps one of the most undefined and misunderstood words that we have. I guess it is for that reason I will choose not to use it.

What I believe in and what is incredibly important to embed in all the programs that we offer, be they social programs or economic programs, is equity. That to me means that there is equitable access, that there is fairness and equity and everyone has equal, equitable opportunities.

The hon. member has asked what kind of social programs should be excluded. I really believe this consultation process that we are undergoing now is incredibly valuable. For one thing I think it has all Canadians focused on exactly what we need to offer in the way of social policy. What has come through very clearly is that we need to target those in need.

The other incredibly valuable thing that we have done is we have discussed this with those who receive the programs and the benefits, not just the provinces and not just those who deliver those programs but the people who actually receive them. What we find from that is that is where the wisdom and the experience with those programs comes from. That is where we see some of the very best suggestions of change on how to make those programs better, more efficient, more cost efficient and more effective.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I have a really short question for the hon. member.

You mentioned that your community wants more community involvement in the process. Can you see programs within the system where the community can take over part of what the federal government is now involved in?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Edmonton East I would just remind my colleagues to direct your interventions through the Chair and not directly to one another.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen in the past few years is a real desire by communities to be self-sufficient, in essence to take care of their own needs. If those needs relate to children, whether they be recreation or nutritional programs or whatever, I certainly see there being real value in community groups and organizations taking over those functions.

It is important to know that those organizations will need some kind of support to get them going. It is happening now.