Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Security Programs

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this historic opportunity to participate in the debate on the reform of Canada's social security system which this government has launched.

I also welcome the challenge of chairing the House of Commons committee that will seek the views of Canadians over the next few months on the proposals for reform which the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in this House yesterday. I want to say a few words later in my remarks about how the committee proposes to hear from Canadians on this important issue.

There are few dimensions of being Canadian that resonate more strongly in the hearts of all of us than the sense that we are a caring, compassionate and tolerant society. These fundamental national values find their most tangible expression in the framework of social programs that together we have built through our federal, provincial and municipal governments over the past half century to provide support, income security and dignity to those less fortunate members of our society in times of need.

These programs, unemployment insurance, the Canada assistance plan, the Canada student loans program, and the system of federal-provincial co-operation in the funding and support of higher education in Canada, the family allowance and its successor programs, the child tax credit and the child benefit payments for families with children have been responses by reform minded Canadians to real needs crying out to be met. They were inspired by a vision of a better Canada and a willingness in the pursuit of that vision to overcome the overwhelming drag of the status quo and the straitjacket of existing institutions to find ways to realize on that vision.

The great bulk of the national programs that comprise the social security system in Canada today were put in place by successive Liberal governments. They form a proud legacy of this party to the building of Canada. We on this side of the House have every reason and every incentive to want to preserve the social security system and its values which is at the core of our political inheritance.

Why would a Liberal government be proposing to review and reform the very programs with which it has been so identified over the years? For the very same reasons that led our predecessors to defy conventional wisdom and overcome the resistance to change in order to create these programs in the first place.

The Liberal Party of Canada is not the party of the status quo. It is the party of reform. It is the party that has been willing to take on the risks and challenges of guiding and leading Canadians into the future, a future which may not always be fully visible.

The destitution and despair of the great depression called for the creation of programs such as unemployment insurance and new arrangements for assisting provinces and municipalities in helping those in need. These arrangements and other initiatives by federal governments have been met with all kinds of objections for why they could not be funded or why they could not be carried out. So too this Liberal government in the spirit of its predecessors finds itself today challenging the status quo in order to bring Canadians into a brighter future.

We on this side of the House were not elected just to defend the status quo. We were elected to confront the real problems that face Canadians today.

One of the real problems confronting Canadians today is the one million children who in the midst of this abundant land live in poverty because their parents and more often than not their single parents for a whole host of reasons are denied access to the means to earn a decent living for themselves. As a result, these children are born short changed on the promise of being Canadian.

A real problem facing Canadians today is a stubbornly high level of unemployment which exists side by side in good and bad times with a growing number of jobs which fail to get created or go unfilled because there are no Canadians trained to take them. Increasingly the profile of the jobless is not the individual who is between jobs for a few months. It is the long term unemployed whose skills are out of date for the current economy and who cannot get the support to obtain the training necessary to rejoin the labour force.

In the face of this reality our unemployment insurance system which was developed and designed to serve as a temporary bridge between jobs is increasingly being used by a smaller and smaller share of recipients year after year as a form of almost guaranteed annual income. The result is that notwithstanding major increases in UI payments in recent years the number of unemployed who are helped is decreasing and the ability of government through these programs to assist the unemployed to get into the job market is being more and more curtailed.

In an effort to contain UI costs in recent years a host of regulations have been erected that forced the unemployed into dependency traps and often bizarre lifestyle choices. Most Canadian families know that the system is not working. While the proposals in the government document may not be the only solutions, it is clear that more than tinkering is necessary.

The focus of this reform exercise is not deficit reduction. However Canadians know that with a government debt that costs taxpayers more than $40 billion a year in interest charges alone to service, we cannot ignore the cost of this deficit as a consideration in the future programs we undertake as Canadians. If Canadians do not begin as a society to gain control over the mountain of debt and to reduce the deficit which is adding to it we may find that our social programs will not be determined by us but by the international bond agencies that buy our bonds.

These are some of the real problems which this review of social programs and the other elements of the government's jobs and growth agenda are meant to address and in which all Canadians are being invited to participate. The focus for this participation will be the Parliament of Canada and specifically the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which has been asked by the government to carry out broad consultations on these reform proposals.

We will begin our work immediately, hearing from the minister of human resources himself the day MPs return from the parliamentary recess on October 17. We will meet with experts and national associations in Ottawa to hear their reactions and ideas to the government's proposals.

Beginning November 14 in Whitehorse, Yukon, our committee will begin an intensive five week program of cross Canada hearings and consultations which will take us to every province and territory in this great country to hear firsthand what Canadians want from their social security system and what improvements they have to suggest to the government's proposals.

Today we will be making public the schedule of the committee's travels and details on how Canadians can participate in the work of this committee. I encourage Canadians to make contact with the clerk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development by phone, fax or letter for information on the committee's schedule and how they can get involved.

In addition to the committee's consultations, we are encouraging individual members of Parliament to carry out their own consultations, to hold public assemblies and town hall meetings in order to obtain the views of their constituents on the proposals and to bring the results of their consultations forward to the committee for its consideration in the preparation of its final report.

The views and recommendations which result from these consultations will form an important element in the response of Parliament to the ideas in the government's discussion paper.

As chairman of the Standing Committee of Human Resources, I had the chance to hear the views of Canadians of all social conditions and of all regions. The message they sent is quite clear. They are proud of a system that could assist many people in the past, but that simply is no longer working well enough.

Our existing system is too easily misused, it does not meet the needs of many people, and it is out of touch with the present social and economic reality. During the last 20 years, many traditional sectors in our economy have had to struggle to survive, and undergo fundamental changes. Many traditional jobs have disappeared and been replaced by jobs requiring more education, training and upgrading of skills.

Since 1976, the long-term unemployment rate has tripled because of those changes. More and more people have had to go on unemployment insurance repeatedly, while struggling to adjust to new requirements. Today, almost 40 per cent of recipients have been on unemployment insurance at least three times in the last five years.

The number of people on welfare has doubled since 1981. Three million Canadians are now on welfare and the cost of social assistance provided under the Canada Assistance Plan has gone up from less than $3 billion to more than $8 billion a year. Chronic unemployment and the increasing number of people who so often claim unemployment insurance show that people are not receiving the help they need.

Too many young people drop out of school without being ready to be part of the labour force. Too many people on welfare or low income earners find themselves in a position where they cannot afford to develop their skills or cannot do it because of the system.

Too many people whose career has been cut short because of changing conditions do not get the training they need. First and foremost, we must find solutions based on the new consensus in terms of principles and priorities and the mechanisms to implement them.

The reform goals and principles outlined in the working paper reflect what Canadians have told me. We must now set out to take action on principles and priorities through the implementation of concrete ideas on how to make the best use of our money in order to meet our main objectives.

There are several proposals in the working paper and they are obviously open for discussion. Given the restrictions about government expenditures, we will have to make difficult choices as to the priorities that we have, as a country, in order to implement some of these proposals contained in the working document.

We have the opportunity to work together and to establish a better system for the future. A system that will be efficient and that will give some hope to parents, children, workers, people looking for jobs, future generations and Canadians across the country.

Next February, I intend to report to this House on the consultations made by the Standing Committee. Once the consultations are over and the Canadians have made their priorities known, this government will introduce a bill to establish a new social security system. Let us see to it that this bill truly reflects what Canadians want and what they need, that is a fair, efficient and affordable social security system we will believe in and which will bring us into the 21th century.

The time has come for a focused vigorous debate on what we can achieve, on what we must achieve through social security reform. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to help ensure Canadians can take part in this debate. This is a matter for all Canadians, not just interest groups and not just governments.

We have to move the discussion to the coffee shops, the dinner table, the boardrooms, classrooms and union halls. We have to listen closely to what people are saying. All Canadians will have an opportunity to examine these suggestions, to propose new ones and to help define the priorities for reform.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I look forward to holding public hearings across the country. I intend to ensure that these hearings are as complete and as accessible as possible.

If at all possible, I want anyone who wants to take part to have an opportunity to so. The government will organize consultation seminars across the country. These will provide a broad range of Canadians the opportunity to take part in an intense examination of the issues and priorities for social security reform.

We will have public meetings in all major centres to bring the discussion of reform to the grassroots of our country. Groups such as labour unions, business and professional associations or service groups are encouraged to organize their own reform consultations and to make their views known.

We will make detailed information and material available to both individuals and groups, setting out the facts on social security, the objectives and principles proposed by the governments as well as the ideas for reform outlined in this discussion paper.

We will provide individuals with a workbook to help people work through the reform issues, identify their priorities and concerns and provide direct feedback to the government. I encourage all members of this House to take part, not only by making their own views known but by making information available to their constituents, encouraging their participation, gathering their views and passing them on.

This is a unique opportunity to move the debate on social security beyond the traditional confines of narrow ideologies. It is an opportunity to go beyond the traditional debates about cutting programs or spending our way out of trouble. Today, that kind of narrow vision misses the point.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to appeal to Atlantic Canada in particular and to the constituents whom I am honoured to represent here in the House of Commons. No region in Canada has a greater stake in the success of this reform exercise than Atlantic Canada.

No region has been more reliant on the income security system than Atlantic Canada and for good reason. Because of their historical position in Confederation and the nature of their economy over the years the people of Atlantic Canada have by necessity been forced to rely on the income security system more than the country as a whole. In many parts of Atlantic Canada the people know the adversity we have recently had to deal with because of crises in our natural resource industry such as the fishery in some places, forestry and other industries and other sectors on which we are traditionally reliant.

The people of Atlantic Canada may well feel concerned. They may feel nervous. They may feel that their concerns are not being addressed or will not be addressed in a future social security system.

For that reason there may be a temptation not to participate. However, I would encourage and appeal particularly to the people of Atlantic Canada to be a full player and full partners with the government in redesigning an income security system that will serve them as well as the rest of Canada so that rebuilding the economy of this country can be achieved.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague, I realize it is true that the deficit is very high. It is true that we pay $40 billion just in debt charges. And I agree that something has to be done about it. But at the same time, I wonder why the debt has grown so much. How did that happen?

Why does a country like Canada have to pay so much interest on its debt, a country said to be rich, rich in natural resources as well as human resources? How is that possible? If we look back, what party was in power in Canada before this government and the previous Conservative government? The Liberals. They are the ones who have put into debt to a dramatic extent not only our generation, but also and mainly our children and grandchildren.

They are the ones who should bear the responsibility. Today, we take stock and, of course, realize that the situation has become unbearable. So, they have to take the bull by the horns and they will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. When a family experiences financial difficulties, what does it do? There were prosperous times for this family in the past, but what does it do now? The first thing to go is one of the two cars it owns. Then the cottage. That is where cuts start in families. Do they start by taking away the bread and butter from the table for the children?

As I see it, this reform will penalize the poorest of the poor. There are two categories of unemployed workers; first, the good ones, that is to say those who require almost no assistance, who are out of work on a temporary basis. The second category includes people from my region who are seasonal workers such as silviculture workers. These people want to work. I know, I was the president of their society for many years and they would tell me: "Give us work. We want to work." We could do nothing for them.

What is happening here is that these people, who want to work and put their hearts into their work, will be penalized. When spring comes, they get all anxious. They wonder: "Will there be work for us?" And the industry does its very best to find work for them, in co-operation with the town councils, companies, producers' syndicates, and to put them to work. But work eventually runs out and, every year, these workers end up on unemployment again, naturally. These people will be penalized.

In my region in particular, and I like to stress this point because students tell me to repeat this every occasion I have, the university is far from home, and the Univervité du Québec in Rimouski offers only certain programs. This means going away to Quebec City, Montreal or elsewhere to study. If cuts are made in postsecondary education, then our students will get further into debt, and this is true for all students in Canada of course. It is estimated that university students with a doctorate are $50,000 in debt and have no job prospects when they graduate. Wherever they send a CV, they get the same answer back: "Sorry, we have no work for you".

I fail to understand why, after putting the country this many billions of dollars into debt, the first thing to be cut -and that the most infuriating and frustrating-is assistance to the poor, the underprivileged, those who cannot speak for themselves, while the rich get to keep their family trusts, for example. The government does not dare do anything that would affect them. That is understandable, given they are the ones who fill the campaign coffers. They fill them and keep filling them. The other day, a proposal to put election financing in order was rejected. I commend nonetheless those members opposite who voted for this proposal. But no thought is given to this. They do not want to, because friends help one another. It is not the poor, the vulnerable, who will help my fellow members; it is the wealthiest.

I strongly deplore this situation, particularly for rural residents, not to mention Gaspé fishermen who will be hit hard. I find it unacceptable for my region, for Quebec's rural ridings-and I imagine it is the same thing elsewhere. I do not understand how my colleague can say that these measures will be good for the most vulnerable. If he can prove it to me, let him do so.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite and his concern about the Canadian debt and about the most vulnerable in our society.

I think that the best way to start reducing the Canadian debt burden-this is not the time to explain why the debt is so high-is to put Canadians back to work, create ideal conditions for economic growth and, at the same time, find ways to reduce overlap and duplication and other problems preventing people from finding work and undergoing training and development when needed, so that we can improve the economic picture, given Canada's existing prospects. A dramatic example of that can be found in rural regions like mine, in the eastern regions that are dependent on ailing industries such as fishing.

The purpose of this debate is to get from members on both sides of the House concrete ideas that will allow us as a government and as a society to create conditions favourable to economic growth and job creation, reduce the debt burden and, more important, promote the dignity attached to employment, to income and to Canadians' ability to work and support their families. That is the challenge issued by this debate to this House and to all Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition's training and youth critic, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the social program reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I am also, as a member of the Committee on Human Resources Development, pleased to participate because, as you know, Madam Speaker, with two of my opposition colleagues, I was involved in all the proceedings of the first consultation phase. We heard many people express their opinions on this. Unfortunately, I must tell you right off the bat that I am disappointed with this proposal when we were expecting an action plan. This discussion paper almost invites us to scrap last winter's consultations and start over.

As the training and youth critic, I will focus on the education part of the discussion paper issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I say education because that is what it means. Although the third section of the minister's discussion paper is called "Learning: Making lifelong learning a way of life", they are clearly talking about education. This section nonetheless contains elements that will affect post-secondary education systems in Quebec and Canada.

Again, may I remind you that, under the 1867 Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial jurisdiction. The discussion paper released by the Minister of Human Resources Development even included the following statement, on page 57: "In Canada, education falls within provincial jurisdiction". While admitting this fact, the federal government also points to training-related problems and uses them to justify its continued involvement in the field of education.

It is obvious, when you read this document, that the federal government has no intention of withdrawing from the field of education, even though it is a vital provincial sector, particularly for Quebec, since our identity as a nation is at stake.

The most contradictory aspect of this paper is the fact that, while the government expresses a will to tighten controls and centralize even more education-related responsibilities, it obviously wants to withdraw its financial support.

The withdrawal of federal support would not result in fewer constraints, quite the contrary: It would mean less money and more constraints. The federal government intends to cut transfers to the provinces and to replace them with more student loans. However, these transfer payments are used by provinces to subsidize secondary schools. The provinces will be stuck with a shortfall of $2.6 billion. They will then be left with two options: either allocate more money or else leave the institutions to fend for themselves, which would surely mean increased tuition fees.

The federal government seems to think that students would easily absorb such an increase, which is anticipated in the minister's document, on page 63:

It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put upward pressure on tuition fees.

In fact, a Treasury Board memo published in the Toronto Star today indicates that tuition fees will double if such a measure is implemented. Cabinet has been informed of that.

Students already incur large debts. Let me give you some figures. In Canada, 10 per cent of personal bankruptcies affect students or former students unable to repay their loans. And what does the minister propose? He wants to put students even deeper into debt.

In Quebec, a university student spends more than 30 per cent of his or her annual budget on tuition fees and related costs. This percentage has doubled since 1990. The situation is the same everywhere in Canada.

In fact, the problem is somewhat less serious in Quebec because the provincial government, through a scholarship program, has helped alleviate the burden of students to ensure that everyone can get a university education. Quebecers can be proud of that initiative since, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning, until the quiet revolution, in the sixties, only rich families could afford to put their children through university.

The discussion paper also refers to a new scheme which consists in making repayment proportional to one's income. This concept raises many questions. Since the government claims to be relying on the support of all partners, it is rather surprising that, after the working paper was tabled, the first reaction was that of the Canadian Federation of Students which immediately opposed the income contingent repayment, because they worry about the terms of the program. They are all the more concerned because of pilot projects which were carried out, particularly in Ontario.

I should mention that Ontario had an experimental project and that last year, only 75 students participated whereas up to 1,000 could have. Why? Because the terms of this income contingent repayment plan are often quite restrictive. Students have to say that they want to be part of that program almost as soon as they begin their studies. Usually, they are forced into that program. That approach was tried in other countries, and results have always been negative. Nevertheless, Canada now wants to use that approach. We should at least ask a few questions.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Students stated: "Members of the Canadian Federation of Students are determined to fight government proposals and we are convinced that the majority of Canadians will support us because they want to maintain accessible post-secondary education for themselves and their children". The federation reacted that way because it is convinced that this reform will push students deeper into debt and restrict access to higher education. That was the first reaction.

The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec, François Robello, made the following comment: "The government will have to publicly assume responsibility for passing the bill on to students. The way this reform is going, access to higher education will be under direct fire". The first federation is an umbrella organization mainly for associations outside Quebec, and the second one is affiliated to but independent from the first one and represents most student associations in Quebec.

Two federations, two similar conclusions. Both are concerned about student indebtedness and access to higher education.

The government claims that the reform was initiated for the very purpose of securing freer access to higher education. There is already some disagreement on the subject between the government and representatives of this community. Since members of student groups experience first hand the effects of being in debt, they are clearly in a good position to evaluate the impact of such reforms.

In addition to the students, groups representing universities, colleges and their presidents in Quebec and across Canada have expressed their concern that student debt would have the effect of compelling universities and colleges to raise their tuition fees, which in turn would reduce enrolment.

The future does not look too good for government members, when we see both students and universities worried about the same thing. I think you are in for a tough time during the months to come.

As the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on October 5 pointed out, the government wants to cut $7.5 billion from social programs over the next five years. During Question Period, in response to a question from a member of the Reform Party, the minister referred to $15 billion. We know that the budget already provided for cuts totalling $7.5 billion, and now the minister says $15 billion. This is not a rumour. This is not a document leaked to the newspapers. This is the minister speaking.

There is one suggestion that did not really impress me but did raise some questions. Just think, to deal with student financial problems, they suggested using their RRSPs, their registered retirement savings plans. Now how many students who are in debt have RRSPs when they graduate or when they are at university? Unless the minister or the paper he tabled means that parents could use their RRSPs to pay for their children's education. If that is the case, then we have a problem. First of all, students who are over 18-which means they are of age-are adults and want to be able to take care of themselves, and now the implication is, unless any other explanations are forthcoming, and we hope they will be, that the parents' RRSPs could be used. This is disturbing because usually, people have RRSPs for their retirement and not to pay for the education of their children.

What about consultation? The Standing Committee on Human Resources, of which I am a member, will conduct wide-ranging consultations across Canada. Why bother, since the government has already made its decision on its reforms? The parameters are there, plus cuts totalling $15 billion. What we need here is a little motivation, because if spending cuts are to be the order of the day, people will come to defend their own particular interests, and you can hardly blame them.

What this paper does not contain, and although what it does contain is disturbing, what it does not contain is equally disturbing, and I am referring to a genuine job creation policy, because we can train students and keep improving their employability, but in the end they will just be competing for the same number of jobs.

What do we see now? More and more young people, at least a third of them, live in insecurity, not just for a year but for long periods; at least a third or so of young people in Quebec have trouble finding permanent employment.

What does this reform project do? It calls them frequently unemployed, it classifies them and we see in the discussion paper that they are particular targets for cuts. On the contrary, action should be taken to strengthen these people who are victims of unemployment. Why attack the victims instead of unemployment? Why is the human resources development minister's paper silent on job creation? Why does it not talk about full employment measures? Some countries have almost full employment, so why not use them as models?

The paper does not cover everything. We see leaks. We could talk about them at length, but when a member meets his constituents, he realizes that cuts are being made to established organizations that are working to increase employability. Many organizations in Quebec at least were told that their programs would be cut by 10 per cent, even though some community organizations grouped together in the RQUODE umbrella organization, where I attended a consultation last year, have a placement rate of 75 per cent. Resources are being cut back for these established organizations.

While they consult, they cut. Unemployment insurance was cut last year. Now the organizations are being attacked.

This morning, I heard the minister tell us about an experience he had when he visited a training centre in New Brunswick. I would suggest that he not go as far; he could go to Gatineau, a few kilometres from here, where the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre found out last week that not only was it getting a 10 per cent cut but that the job search club was losing its entire $240,000 annual grant, while young people are told about so-called measures and intentions. Meanwhile, what the document does not say is that cuts are being made.

Madam Speaker, do you think that I am being partisan? Last week, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose name I do not want to mention, said that he was shocked. He tried to save the program at the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre in Gatineau from being cut. He had to admit that he was disappointed because he had been misled, it seems, so he said in the newspaper. He had been given some hope and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who lives in Hull, had announced that the problem would be settled.

But three days later, the way it was settled was by cutting it. And that is not the only organization to be cut. In at least two other regions, organizations that prefer to remain anonymous have already been informed verbally that they will be eliminated. Meanwhile, the government puts in place its youth strategy, the Youth Service Corps, and gives $10,000 per young Canadian, while Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi managed to find jobs for 375 young people on a budget of $240,000 last year. And these young people later generated $1 million in tax revenues for the federal government. Before eliminating organizations, they could at least have had the decency to await the result of the consultation process before cutting programs.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I paid close attention to the hon. member's speech. I am somewhat concerned about his interpretation of the facts as outlined very clearly in the green book that is part of the government's agenda for jobs and growth.

The hon. member and the Leader of the Official Opposition have tried to depict this exercise by the federal government to bring about positive change in the lives of many Canadians who feel trapped by our social security system as a political power grab, a centralization of power by the federal government.

I draw the member's attention to three pages to illustrate how wrong the hon. member is in that particular sense. Page 26 indicates very openly and very clearly that we are viewing this exercise as an excellent way to better improve federal-provincial relations.

I would like to refer to a couple of points. We admit that the situation must change. The federal government is committed to increased collaboration and co-operation with the provinces and territories in order to simplify access to services, to minimize duplication and waste, and to clarify the roles and responsibility consistent with a constitution based on who is best able to accomplish what is required in the interest of individual Canadians.

On page 40 of the document we talk about an issue which I know the hon. member truly cares about. He has to be honest with the people listening to his speech, because the section clearly outlines our willingness as a federal government to sit down-whether it is the province of Quebec or any other province in the country-with any interested province and territory to talk about a new three-year labour force development agreement for which interested provinces and territories could assume responsibility.

I think the hon. member should pay attention to the following:

-strategic planning related to various federal employment development services, including institutional and workplace training, as well as project-based training;

-managing and the purchase of institutional training;

-planning and implementing a network of "single window" offices, that would assemble under one roof programs and services provided by both levels of government, including unemployment insurance, training, welfare and other labour market programs; and

-managing a variety of other federal programs, such as co-operative education and Canada Employment Centres for Students. The list of programs could vary, depending on the interest of each province or territory.

Another point the hon. member mentioned, although he sometimes selects the kinds of words he wants to use, was in reference to the income contingent repayment. He knows as well as I do because we share a lot of time together at the committee of human resource development that like Quebec they have the option to opt out.

The hon. member can get to his feet this afternoon and tell Quebecers that the federal government wants to sit down and discuss these matters and that its major objective in this exercise is to improve the quality of life for people.

The hon. member should also tell the people of Quebec that we initiated these discussions so we can help all Canadians from coast to coast toward a better and bright future for themselves and for future generations.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer this to my hon. colleague, whom I know well, as he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development and we both sit on the same committee.

I think he already knows the answer. Not mine though. So far, three provinces have indicated that they find it unacceptable in many respects. Quebec of course considers it unacceptable. A statement to that effect was made yesterday. The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned the government's commitment to co-operate. To illustrate the spirit that drives this government, I would like to quote from the student financial assistance act, Bill C-28, passed last year. This act provides for the possibility of opting out. Yes, but "only if the province satisfies the Minister-that is the Minister of Human Resources Development, the new super minister of education for Canada-by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect as the plan established by this Act".

In the mind of the new government, in a spirit of sharing, from now on, the provinces could apparently be entitled to financial compensation-in a provincial jurisdiction-provided they satisfy the minister that their plan has a similar effect, the same effect-as this is put in the act- as the federal plan. A fine example of co-operation indeed!

Canada is currently undergoing changes. We are witnessing the end of a status quo. This reminds me of statements made by a certain Prime Minister, the former leader of the Liberal Party, to the effect that the 1980 referendum would indeed bring about change, but not in the direction that the people of Quebec expected. Change is happening now and I can see it from here: I do not doubt the persuasiveness of the present Quebec Minister of Education, with whom I have worked, but he has to satisfy the federal minister that his plan is the same as the federal plan. What a great show of co-operation!

This government tells the provinces: "We will go along with you on this, provided you do exactly as we tell you. From now on, your role will be limited to do as you are told, in a provincial jurisdiction on top of that".

Make no mistake, people of Quebec, that is what this co-operative proposal is about. When they talk about decentralization in the discussion paper, they are not talking about giving more powers to the provinces, they are talking about going directly to the groups, the municipalities, the people interested in employment. They would bypass the provinces to reach the groups and organizations concerned. Is that what decentralization means? In any case, that is not what Quebecers want. If the government stubbornly insists on spending less but controlling more, I fear that the reaction will not be the one the parliamentary secretary is hoping for.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, before making my comments, I would like to salute my wife Zaïda and a group of friends from Chile in the opposition gallery and I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Lévis on his presentation. I want to say that I am totally against this social security reform proposed by the government.

I think that it shows a total lack of human values, of compassion and fairness to the most vulnerable in our society. The Canadian social security system is not the most generous in the world. Far from it! Many systems in Europe are more generous. Canada spends $18 billion less than the average OECD-or industrialized-country. That is why the union movement was unanimous in opposing and fighting the social security reforms advocated by the government.

I will also fight these reforms because they hurt the most vulnerable, the unemployed, the people on welfare. In my riding of Bourassa, in north-end Montreal, which is a working-class riding, many immigrants, many Haitians are suffering from the economic crisis and they are not at all happy with the reform proposed by this government.

For all these reasons, I will be among those who will fight tooth and nail against these reforms. I congratulate once again my colleague, the hon. member for Lévis.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. The revamping of our social security system is one of the most important issues facing our government and our people. By revitalizing these programs now we are investing in our long term economic and social well-being. If we work together to make positive change we can renew the country and prepare ourselves for new challenges.

When our government initiated this review last January, major emphasis was placed on the need for thorough nation-wide consultations. We realize the importance of listening to the concerns, the ideas and opinions of as many Canadians as possible.

Consultation is key to a successful social reform process, and that is what I want to talk about today. During the election campaign I heard very clearly from the people of my riding that they wanted a greater say in the decision making process. I am sure other hon. members heard the same message. People have grown cynical of governments who make decisions behind closed doors without input from the public. Instead people want their voices to be heard during the development process.

That is what the social security reform is all about. To a large extent, our social programs have been a defining feature of Canadian society, programs such as unemployment insurance, social assistance, post-secondary education and child tax benefits reflect our strong values of sharing and compassion.

Despite our commitment to social programs, we have over 1.6 million unemployed Canadians, over a million children living in poverty, thousands of young people who cannot get a start on their careers, and families who have fallen into poverty traps and see little hope for the future. Clearly we can do better.

In order to improve the system, however, we must consult and gain the support of members of Parliament, all of the provinces, various interest groups and most important, the Canadian public and the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants.

I believe there is a consensus among Canadians that we must improve and update the various programs that have helped make us the great nation that we are today.

An Angus Reid survey conducted earlier this year showed that fully 85 per cent of Canadians agreed there is a need to reform our many social programs. I know the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants will seize the opportunity to participate in this process in order to help map out the future of our social security system.

In the past few weeks I have heard from critics who have said on more than one occasion there is no need for consultations, that the decisions have already been made and that the government will go ahead and do what it wants regardless of public input. I heard it already from across the way.

As I look at this discussion paper and I read the options being put forward, I feel confident in categorically rejecting these arguments. The final decisions have not been made. This paper does not lay out government decisions. Instead this document outlines certain principles and it presents options for consideration. It is a catalyst for further debate.

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to facilitate this debate in our communities. Anyone who has not done this consultation and at the end of the day says that they have not been a part of the process, should be ashamed.

We must bring these options to the people in our own ridings, talk about how best to reform the system. We must ask what options are acceptable, what will work in our communities.

In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants this process has generated a great deal of interest. In a questionnaire that we distributed throughout the riding last spring, fully 77 per cent of respondents felt that Canada's social security system should be a top priority for reforming.

I have also received many phone calls and letters from people who have offered their opinions and ideas on what changes should be made to the network of our social programs. In response to this tremendous local interest on this issue, my team set up a committee of community people to help me design a process to consult the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants.

Through the diligent work of this group, a series of four consultation forums will be held throughout my riding within the next three weeks. The objectives of these consultations are straightforward. First, to stimulate a broad discussion among constituents about Canada's social policy programs. Second, to seek the views of the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants on the future direction of social policy in Canada and the kinds of programs that will be needed in the future. Last, to submit to the minister the views of the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants in order that the concerns that my constituency has put forward are a part of the decision making process.

As part of this process, the committee has developed a questionnaire which was distributed to every household in my constituency. This is the type of consultation process, in my

opinion, which will stimulate worthwhile discussion on our social security reform.

The dedication that this committee has shown in establishing a thorough, local consultation process clearly demonstrates the importance people have placed on the issue. While we still have a lot of work to do I want to thank the members of my local committee for their time and great effort. They have truly demonstrated their desire to work toward positive change.

It is this type of involvement which will bring about focused discussion and worthwhile recommendations as to how to improve our system. I would encourage all members of Parliament to follow the lead set by the committed volunteers of Annapolis Valley-Hants.

I would like to close my remarks today by reiterating the importance of public discussion and debate on the options that are before us. The decisions have not been made. I have not spoken for or against these proposals because the people of my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants have not been heard. By communicating with our constituencies we can ensure that our programs reflect the concerns and interests of the people across the country.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised when the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said in his speech that the government wanted to do this out in the open, not behind closed doors. In yesterday's Toronto Star , however, we read, and I quote:

"The federal government has a secret plan to cut $7.5 billion from social programs over the next five years". Further it states: "The plan was put on paper after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asked his cabinet colleagues to clarify just how much social reform would save federal coffers before the end of the Liberal mandate".

I was surprised this should happen behind closed doors, but I also have the impression that as far as members from the Maritimes were concerned, the doors were closed to them as well, because that is the only explanation I can find. The hon. member who represents the Maritimes comes from a region that, like Eastern Quebec, which I represent, has been hit very hard. The government is going to create two kinds of unemployed workers in these regions: people who have been on unemployment insurance at least three times during the past five years and those who are employed on a more regular basis.

This is going to be a regular witch hunt. People will be practically branded as cheaters: "Why were you unemployed so many times?" The government also says their benefits will depend on the number of times they were unemployed. This means that two people working for the same employer and doing the same kind of work and earning the same salary might not receive the same amount of benefits if they are laid off, depending on whether or not they were employed regularly. There will be utter confusion!

I suppose we can assume the only jobs this reform will create are jobs in the bureaucracy, because the federal government will do exactly what it has done in the past: increase the number of bureaucrats instead of introducing specific job creation measures that will help the regions kick start their economies. One of these measures, for instance, would be to reduce the employer's contribution to unemployment insurance premiums. Instead, we have something that will further complicate the situation.

I am very surprised to see a member from the Maritimes rise in the House and say he is prepared to put this before his constituents, instead of immediately taking a stand against this kind of proposal.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I take note that my hon. colleague obviously does not have very much faith in people and people's abilities to make a contribution to the forum that is up and coming.

I have great support for the people of Atlantic Canada. We know the issues. We are putting forward ideas for debate to which I believe the people of Atlantic Canada will contribute heavily. They will help us make decisions in this Parliament.

The hon. member feels that the Canadian people do not have that kind of ingenuity, that kind of intelligence. I am insulted by that and I am insulted that he would put that on the people of Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada and the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants will contribute to the debate. They will help us make the decisions that are needed to reform our system.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was most interested in this speech and I would like to commend the member for the process he is going through in his constituency. I would like to do something like that in my constituency too.

I wonder whether he would contemplate giving us a copy of the questionnaire he is using. Hopefully between what he has done and what we would do, we could remove any political bias in the process and thereby get a good cross-section of what people across the country would respond to. I really believe in honest and open discussion. I want to hear the options and I too trust the people in my constituency.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will forward the member a document. It was a householder that I sent to every household in my riding, outlining what we are doing. They then have the opportunity to get the document from us now.

I will forward it to the member. I am pleased to hear him say that he trusts the people of Canada and their judgment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

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 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Defence Industry Conversion.

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to commend the member for Elk Island for his co-operative attitude.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the matter of social security reform. A discussion paper we have released gives Canadians a chance to debate the future of these programs, what is necessary and what is possible with the limited resources we have available to us.

As the National Anti-Poverty Organization has correctly noted, the best social security for an individual is a decent job paying decent wages. But we know with technological change that decent job has been altered beyond recognition.

And if that were true so far, just think about what the future has in store for this 18-year old woman, assuming she has just registered this year at a community college. Can anyone predict what skills she will need in the labour market in the year 2030? Of course not!

What we can predict is that her education will not stop on the day she receives her degree. She will have to continue to learn. In fact, to achieve financial security, it is not enough to have a job now; we must also have the skills needed to secure employment at any time in our lives. That is why we must upgrade these skills on a continuing basis.

It seems only yesterday that I was 18 years old myself. Shockingly, I find myself the mother of 18-year old twin boys. The future they face is much different from the one that lay ahead of me at the same age.

When I left school at age 18, the product of rural Saskatchewan, the choices were clear. A generation or two ago it was still expected that one would finish school, train for a specific job and keep that job most of one's working life.

For myself, a young girl from a traditional farm environment I had a couple of choices; be a nurse, be a teacher. I chose teacher. I went to the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon which I am proud to say is a jewel in the crown that is the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt.

Because of this fact and the fact that I am a former teacher, I am particularly delighted today to address the learning chapter of the green book, chapter 3. No one would deny that learning is the key to finding and keeping stable jobs. Competition from other countries, automation, new technologies have changed the world of work irrevocably.

The new jobs in our economy demand higher and broader kinds of skills and this is the future that looms before my 18-year old sons. Unlike me they can expect, no they must plan for, being educated for the likelihood of changing jobs in their working lives. Their future must be one in which lifelong learning is possible. Only this way will our young people be able to enjoy the same financial, emotional and societal benefits of employment as generations past.

Our government, through this discussion paper, faces this challenge. As members know, federal contributions have helped build and operate a system of post-secondary education that is both extensive and accessible.

The Canada Student Loans Program has been improved. We raised the weekly ceiling by close to 57 per cent for full-time students. We also raised the maximum for loans to part-time students from $2,500 to $4,000. We will gradually introduce special subsidies which will provide an extra $3,000 to single parents who pursue part-time studies, to handicapped students and to women registered in Ph. D. programs.

For the first time we will be offering a national program of deferred grants that will help high need students who would otherwise face extremely high debt loads on graduation. There were many other elements to our improvements to CSLP, but members will understand the essential principles of improving and broadening access for students of all kinds.

I would probably not be addressing the Chamber today had it not been for the assistance of the Canada Student Loans Program. Without those funds, a university education would have been beyond my grasp. From the letters I have received from constituents, and from talking to people in the riding like Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Dale, I know there are still young people out there facing the same problem.

Education is not just for the young. As I said in my earlier remarks, it has to involve people at all stages of their lives if we are to be successful in the future. In spite of the removal of certain barriers, one huge obstacle remains. That obstacle is money or the lack of it.

In the discussion paper, we propose ways to finance post-secondary education. We discuss the means to make it more accessible to those who want to develop their skills. We also recognize that we have been contributing to the financing of post-secondary education for a long time and that we must continue to do so.

The provinces and territories manage the system, but without federal involvement it would look much different. The federal government now provides $8 billion a year, or about half the total spending in this area. The discussion paper recognizes that the federal government provides core funding for the post-secondary system through tax points. As members will recall, the budget earlier this year called for the federal government to reduce the other part of that funding, cash transfers.

We have already told the provinces and territories that cash for post-secondary education will be returned to the 1993-94 level of $2.1 billion in 1996-97. Within 10 to 15 years the formula in place to calculate the funding will probably end the portion of the PSE funding paid in cash.

The document raises the question of how to best use that money. We believe that it is by making post-secondary education more accessible to students. We realize that the increase in tuition fees imposed by provinces and territories have forced students to absorb a larger proportion of the costs of their education. The changes we made to improve the Canada Student Loans Program should help students get by, but we can do more.

The paper offers an interesting option. End the cash transfers for institutional support quickly and expand student loan opportunities instead. It is estimated that a $500 million student aid program would lever $2 billion in loans every year. The target for that money could be older students, people who want to add to their skills and who want to retrain.

A student aid program like this can be truly preventive. It can offer support to working people who want to stay ahead of the skill wave.

All this talk of loans brings up the thorny question of repayment. Sooner or later these loans have to be paid back. Over the last year I have received letters from students young and old who are unable to repay their student loans, wondering what they can do. Sometimes they have graduated and cannot find work, other times the work they found was so low paying that they cannot make loan payments. They cannot even make ends meet.

One option being considered in the discussion paper is the income contingent repayment plan. This plan which has been working well in Australia and New Zealand would permit people to repay their loans on the basis of their income perhaps through the tax system.

Another option in the green book is the concept of using RRSPs to finance education and training.

What is clear is that the discussion paper takes into account the need to achieve reform within tight fiscal parameters. Our objective is to use limited resources in the most effective way to preserve and expand access to post-secondary education for many more students.

I congratulate the minister of human resources for having the courage and the commitment to his ideals to engage Canadians in the revitalization of our social programs. The easy way would be to sit back and watch as an outdated social system collapsed under its own weight as it limped toward the next century. It is much harder to take the path set by the minister, to recognize that we have a problem, to identify what those problems are, to take the time to hear what Canadians have to say about their needs and about how those needs may be met and how we can pay for those needs.

In my riding my constituents will be participating in the revitalization process October 29 and 30. I invite all Canadians including some of the doubting Thomases in this House to participate fully in this task, to take advantage of this opportunity to be part of the rebuilding. Criticism without offering constructive alternatives gets us nowhere. Why be part of the problem when it is so much more exciting to be part of the solution?

I am confident that Canadians hold dear our social programs and I anticipate that they will join in the task of reweaving our social safety net so that it is there to cradle Canadians at those times in our lives when we need its support.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned some interesting measures in her speech, including those designed to help women go back to school-she even related her personal experience.

I would like to make a comment followed by a question. The discussion paper contains a provision regarding UI, while the budget speech tabled by the Minister of Finance made mention of a cut. In fact, there are cuts this year and the government wants to make additional cuts affecting those who regularly find themselves without work.

As the hon. member knows, that group includes women. In times of economic hardship, many women will have part-time jobs. Their situation is precarious and, unfortunately, they are often underpaid or paid less than men.

Last year, the human resources development committee heard testimony by the Anti-Poverty Organization. One woman who testified had finally succeeded in returning to school and she told us that, like other students, she would have completed her studies since she was prepared to incur debts of $32,000 in the process. In the end, since she did not have a job, she could not get loans.

As an MP, but also as a woman, what does the hon. member think of the new measure designed to take into account the salary of a spouse, in the context of women's autonomy?

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his focus on the role women play in the new working world. I am so pleased that the hon. member has asked me this question because I think what you must bear in mind when you launch on a massive enterprise like this into social reform is what you have in front of you as a discussion paper. Exactly the kinds of commentaries that you have made here will be the kinds of things we will be hearing when we go out to our ridings-personal stories. People are going to be revealing what the social safety net has meant to them and how it has either worked or has not worked.

I would respond to the hon. member's story with a story of my own from Saskatchewan that has to do again with a young woman. In my other life of continuing to change employment I managed a clinic. I was faced with a young woman, a single parent, who came to the clinic first as a patient.

It turned out she was trapped in a social assistance web. She was unable to get the kind of training she needed because she had no experience. She had no experience because no one would hire her. She was suffering from the risk of losing what benefits she did have for herself. Primarily her focus was on what the loss would be to her child if she was to give up her social assistance.

What ended up happening was that she started working with us, training on the job and trying to get herself into a position in which ultimately she would break free of that welfare trap. I honestly believe that most people are going to be coming forward with ideas that will allow Canadians to make the kind of transition that the hon. member has touched on in his comments.

Whether it is through UI or other programs that will come under discussion in this social security review, those opportunities are the ones we have to make for Canadians to allow them to bridge that gap and to become part of the workforce. I truly believe that most people look forward to the prospect of getting up everyday, going to work and providing for their families.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam speaker, on a point of order, the Reform Party under Standing Order 43(2) will be splitting its time now in 10 minutes and 5 minutes.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard some good input into this debate today. I thought I would add some thoughts around four main points. One is why we need change in our social service delivery; second, talking a little about the process of change; third, our role as Canadians in getting change; fourth, where we go from here today.

We need to change our social service delivery. I think there is a consensus in the House about that. I would like to suggest four things that we must do when we talk about changing social service delivery. One is that social programs must be targeted to those most in need.

We are a rich country. As the Prime Minister is fond of pointing out, we have been identified as the number one most desirable country to live in by the peoples in the world. Interestingly, the Minister for Human Resources Development says in the plan we are discussing today that fully one-fifth of Canadian children live in poverty. I find it difficult to believe that with the billions of dollars we spend on social programs still one-fifth of our children live in poverty. Surely something has to change.

Second, the document says that nearly half of Canadians on welfare are employable. Here we have able bodied people who are being supported out of the public purse. Surely in the richest country in the world there has to be change in our social programs if this is indeed happening.

Another point in this document is that there is a large percentage of chronic users of unemployment insurance caught in a cycle of short term employment and unemployment and dependency again on public programs. In a country like ours we must be doing something wrong with the billions of dollars we spend every single year if these facts are correct that the minister is putting forth to the public.

The family should be recognized as the primary caregiver in society. Our social programs have strayed from that principle in large measure. Our social programs have said that it is mother government and the state that will look after every need and that there will be a program to help in every circumstance of life.

I believe that Canadians are self-reliant people. Canadians have a tradition in which families and communities stand together and help each other through hard times. That is a tradition. That is the element of our culture that Canadians very much want to preserve.

We want private and public help only as a last resort because we believe in standing together. We need to get the emphasis back from a government intruding in our lives and telling us what to do and taking our money and deciding how it is going to help us, to helping each other and being self-reliant to a much larger degree.

Third, our social program delivery should be decentralized to communities, to the community level, to private sectors, to the provincial level where the Constitution places it. Instead, we have strayed to huge federal centralized programs and they are not working for us. We spend about $160 billion every single year, a lot of money, and fully half of that is on social program spending. It is for social programs, transfers to provinces for social programs. Half of everything we spend is on social programs.

We need to make those programs work and the big, distant, bureaucratic, overlapping, inefficient programs simply are unworkable for Canadians. We want to be free to take care of ourselves and to look after ourselves at the community and local levels.

Last, we need change because social programs must be financially sustainable in the long and the short term.

Some time ago I was speaking to a man who was a third generation welfare recipient, but this man was different. He had become a multimillionaire through very hard effort and work on himself. He taught himself. One thing he did was read over 1,500 biographies of successful men and women in the world and he studied them and emulated the principles they had adopted to be successful. I asked this very wealthy and successful and influential man from another country what he would advise me to do as someone in public life, as someone in a leadership position. He gave me his advice in just two words: "Encourage thrift".

Our social programs do not encourage thrift. Instead they encourage dependency. Instead they encourage the expectation that if we spend our money and we do not save it, do not budget wisely, somehow somebody else is going to bail us out and that somebody else is the public purse, the government.

The government does not have any money. The government just has our money and it does not use it very wisely in many cases.

The programs we have had have been purchased not only with our own money but have been purchased on the back of our future. They have been purchased by mortgaging our children's future because right now our children owe over half a trillion dollars to pay for the programs we have given ourselves.

That is not a financially sustainable situation. Government programs are the problem, not the solution. Because of these programs and because of the way they have been financed, one-quarter of everything we spend is on interest and that interest obligation is rising and our children will have to spend that every single day.

To get change we must provide leadership and vision for a new way of doing things. We must move away from the old expectations. We must move away from the old ways of thinking and we must confront this situation with openness and honesty, without pretence, and without trying to savage and distort and run down people who are simply trying to put the facts out to the public.

We need leadership that will last in the public interest, not in political interest, and Canadians should look for that and should insist on that.

What role do Canadians have in this kind of change? If Canadians are to have a meaningful role in this debate and if they are to have meaningful input we owe them something as leaders. We must define the issues. It is not enough to say: "Oh, we are going to talk about this. What do you think?" We have to define the questions that need to be answered. That is very important. If we are going to give reasoned and thoughtful answers we have to know the questions.

Second, there must be fair and balanced information. The cost and the benefits, both in financial and social terms, must be clearly laid out to people. If they are going to give informed opinions they need to have information.

Third, they must have sufficient time. I am very concerned that we have a document that just came out yesterday and Canadians are going to have to indicate in three weeks time whether they wish to speak to this document and have their submissions in in just about a month. That is with nine background papers not even released. How are Canadians going to give informed input without this kind of assistance and background information?

Last, we have to demonstrate to Canadians that their input is going to count for something. If it is just a feel good exercise it is not going to count.

Therefore, I challenge all of us to know what we are doing, to be informed and to tackle the problem in a substantive way.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it would be interesting to find some common ground with the hon. member who just spoke. Although there are a number of points on which we differ, I think she may find that we agree on the following items, for instance. If we consider what caused the present situation, I think one of the main reasons is that we have a country where the division of responsibilities is absolutely mind-boggling.

If we consider unemployment, some people are on welfare, which is a provincial responsibility, and some people who are unemployed are dealt with through an unemployment insurance system. According to the report, 45 per cent of welfare recipients are people who are unemployed but able to work. There is no proposal for a joint approach to this problem, for an integrated and logical strategy to deal with unemployment.

This may be one of the reasons why we are stuck with the present system, and I think we could agree that the answer is a very decentralized approach where the whole problem of unemployment and welfare could be dealt with at a level that is much closer to the people-at the provincial level, at the very least, because the economic situation varies widely from region to region across Canada and a pan-Canadian program does not have the flexibility to respond to these varying demands.

The second point on which we might agree is the issue of transparency. When we read in the Toronto Star that:

Top provincial officials flew into Ottawa to be briefed on the implications of Axworthy's social reform plan, but they were not given the dollar figures obtained by the Star and the document makes clear that it is deliberate.

Obviously, efforts will have to be made, at the level of the committee responsible for holding hearings across the country to listen to Quebecers and Canadians, to ensure that the people appearing before us have all the relevant information at hand because, as a member of this committee, I had no intention of being a puppet. I want the real figures to be used. On that too, I think that we can work together with the hon. member to make sure things go in the right direction.

One last point that could elicit co-operation is the different outlook. The reform proposal before us is essentially the same as the one the Conservatives would have tabled. Somewhere someone who is not an elected member is controlling the entire system. That is extremely dangerous for Canada and I do hope that the hon. member will agree with me on the various points I just raised.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that people of good sense will always agree. I would like to think that we are working together here because we are getting paid by the people of Canada. I would also like to think that we are working together for the good of the people of Canada. As far as the problem of unemployment goes it is important to note that when we take large amounts of money out of the pockets of business people, investors and entrepreneurs to fund government activities and government programs we are diminishing their ability to create real long term sustainable economic activity which creates real long term jobs.

It is not governments that create jobs. It is us with our money and our hard work.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is beginning to look as though Pierre Trudeau's vision of a socialist Canada has come true. By making the federal government this country's largest employer he guaranteed most people would be reliant on government for their livelihood.

By instituting new laws to create a just society we are now faced with criminals having more rights than their victims. By systematically tearing down the traditions and freedoms of the old Canada he has been able to convince his political apostles that the old ways were corrupt and his way correct. By destroying the country that our forefathers built and fought for he made way for the country that it has become, chasing itself in circles like a confused dog while the world watches in amazement. Even the finance minister said he wants to square the circle. He just does not know where to start.

Those are not the words of a political speech writer, spin doctor or myself but of Mr. Don Nich, a Calgarian and a taxpayer, who like so many Canadians is tired of status quo federalism and passive and ineffective Liberal policies.

As the debt clock ticks its way into the second half of $1 trillion we are increasingly aware of the fact that the old ways of doing things simply do not work any more. They have in fact led to what many Canadian economists describe as a crisis situation threatening the basic financial security of our country now and for many generations to come.

How have we come to be in such a financial mess? Through years and years of allowing federal governments to ignore the problem, by continuing to live on ever increasing levels of borrowed money. More than 25 years of borrowing started with the Liberal government in 1968 and heaven help us continues with a Liberal government today.

By spending at levels we cannot afford and thrusting the resulting burden on to the people of this country through taxation Ottawa has created a two headed monster that threatens the very core of our country. One head of this monster is increased program spending; the other head is the crushing complex system of taxation.

During the last election Canadian taxpayers made it clear that they want politicians with the guts and the vision to lead the way with changes that will benefit them and their children no matter how difficult those changes may be. They can see the two headed monster and want it stopped before it devours their future.

What has the government done to answer this call? The answer is a discussion paper. Today alone the Liberals will spend $113 million more than they bring in. Today alone the Liberals will continue to take $6 from the taxpayer for every $1 that their members pay toward their gold plated MP pension plan for life which socially conscious Reform MPs have sworn to reject. Today alone the Liberals will let the debt clock continue to run at nearly $1,500 per second. Finally, today the Liberals will spend yet another day talking about social reform rather than introducing legislation that they promised all Canadians during the election in their red book. They have deferred the plan and will avoid the problem for another year.

I predict that any legislation that this government does introduce whenever it introduces it will cost the Canadian taxpayer more than the current $38.7 billion it is attempting to review.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Do you want to bet?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, I will side bet you any time, any amount you want.

We believe that like a house Canada is currently mortgaged to the tune of $531 billion. Every year the government borrows about $44 billion more to pay for things we cannot afford. The interest payments on this mortgage alone eat up one-third of our tax dollars and have led to increases in the tax burdens on Canadians and less money for social programs and left their economic fate in the hands of foreign creditors.

The time has come to start getting the books in order today. Pay down this mortgage and live in a home that Canadians can afford and enjoy.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the members of the Liberal Party, I would like to take a moment to provide the building plan for that home. Start by laying out a foundation of reasonable spending, setting priorities on what is truly important. On top of this build the four strong walls of fair taxation, direct democracy, institutional reform and equal rights. Finally, protect all those inside the house with a roof of efficient and effective social programs and stop wasting money on needless frills like gold plated pensions, parliamentary travel, better known as MP tourism, and subsidies for business and special interest groups. I wonder what the Prime Minister and his group of premiers and his whole hoard of bureaucrats going to China will bring back in terms of dollars and cents on a business deal for this country.

The benefits of us owning a mortgage free home includes lower taxes, an improved economic climate and secure social programs. If the Liberal contractors cannot budget and build such a home, the Reform Party will.

We believe it is unfair to finance current programs at the expense of future generations, as mentioned by my colleague from Calgary North. The time has come for Canada's social programs to be financially self-sustainable.

We should democratize UI by having it administered by the employers and employees who finance it. Tighten the rules for UI qualifications so that the program reflects its original purpose as a temporary safety net for those who lose their jobs. Provide incentives to help people become less dependent on government. If UI and welfare equal minimum wage, why should people work?

Also the Reform party believes that our social program should be designed to eliminate all duplication of administration between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Not enough money is getting to the truly needy. I witnessed that personally on the campaign trail during the last election. I met individuals who had legitimate cases. Seniors who had a $55 or $75 cheque said: "This has to last me for a month". Yet they were refused or unable to obtain assistance because of the red tape while seasonal workers across Canada who earn $55,000 or more are using it to pad their incomes. This must stop.

Social programs should be based on family or household income and administered through the tax system. Old age security, for example, is not even mentioned. It costs $20 billion per year and is not funded out of anybody's premiums. It is given to everyone who turns 65 regardless of whether they need it or not. I have not paid one cent toward that program. I will become 65 in 15 years and I will get an automatic $365 per month. I do not know if I deserve that if I make more than $54,000 a year.

Social programs should be fair to all regions of the country and treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live. The Canada assistance plan for example costs $8.2 billion per year and matches provincial spending on welfare for the have not provinces.

What I am going to say in the following sounds tough, but we have to deal with the reality that if you cannot make your region economically viable in any way, shape or form, then taxpayers should not be asked to pay the bill. The money just is not there.

Before we get to that extreme we propose that the federal government decentralize the CAP by passing equivalent tax room to the provinces and let those closer to the provinces decide how the money should be spent. In earlier times people dealing with particular issues in a region were the people who knew the local conditions best. They knew which of their neighbours needed help most. Issues could be dealt with quickly and responsibly and people were directly familiar with their own budget constraints.

Perhaps it is time to push government programs and services closer to the people by placing them under the jurisdiction of the lowest level of government possible. Set basic federal standards, make it portable, make it accessible and give the provinces more flexibility in managing their own affairs. Maybe then we will see more grassroots or local solutions with effective results for the have not provinces.

A social dilemma has been created by the misapplication by this government and the Conservative government of the Keynesian economic theory. In a recession it is fine to borrow to stimulate the economy. In good times you have to pay back what you have borrowed. These past two governments have failed to do that. It is past time for governments to recognize the second half of that theory and start paying down the debt.

Not one member across the floor or in the separatists ranks has like us refused to take the MP pension. Nowhere in the report of the Minister of Human Resources does it say that MPs will lead by example and make the sacrifices that are being asked of all other Canadians. Not one minister has had the courage to go into his department and tell non performing employees: "You are fired" to old school bureaucrats who play the political game. But those bureaucrats have forgotten who they work for, the taxpayers.

If the government really wants to help Canadians help themselves then it should leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it. Taxpayers know how to spend and invest their money much better than the government. Do not tax people and redistribute the money. Leave it at the source. If people are allowed to keep the money they earn they would not need social programs from the government.

A 10 per cent cut for all families earning under $60,000 would leave more money for food, shelter and clothing and that should be the very objective of social programs.

If the government and the finance minister had the political will and the business acumen to lower overall spending, they could easily lower taxes. The handling costs of sending money to Ottawa for bureaucrats to redistribute back to the people as they see fit basically takes 30 to 35 per cent of the moneys out of the programs. This is an enormous impact on the efficiency of the programs.

Objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not partisan politics as is being played out by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It being 5.30 p.m. I am obliged to proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Financial Administration Act

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

moved that Bill C-245, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Auditor General Act (review of budget speech), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my Bill C-245 and why I did propose it. I guess it would be no secret to say that I proposed it because of a great lack of confidence in the ability of this government and indeed the Conservative government before it to accurately project revenues.

This bill asks the Auditor General to order one or more people to review the budget speech and then report to the House on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues used in the preparation of that speech. That report would be by another party and would be submitted to the Speaker on or before May 31.

The reason that is necessary is that we do need another independent body assessing the numbers the government is giving us. I will show today why this and other governments have been projecting revenues like this and have been spending that much and their revenues are downloaded and they end up with deficits.

As I started this speech, this country's debt clock was at $532,343,108,949.98. That just sort of rolls off us Reformers now. However I think the people listening and watching should really understand that this money will be on the backs of our children and our children's children. The overindulgence of the last 20 years must really be noted and it must be accepted that it has to stop. The debate we have already heard today on the social programs from the Reform Party's point of view should be well taken, well accepted, and the rhetoric we are getting from the Liberal Party should be suspect at the very least.

How did we ever get into this mess? Besides overspending and overindulging and overloading the taxpayer, government manipulation of the budget numbers is one of the primary problems. How can government overspend, one asks. It is quite easy when you bring forward to the public estimated revenues of a certain amount of money.

It is like a family whose income is $56,000 a year. They turn around and say: "We know we have $56,000 but let us just say it is going to be $86,000 this year and let us spend $86,000". At the end of the year they end up owing $30,000 to the bank. Next year they do the same thing and the following year. Pretty soon that family owes $90,000 or $100,000 and what happens? The bank comes into play and says: "Wait, you cannot pay your bills". Then the tragedy of personal bankruptcy takes place.

With government however the bank does not come into play, the taxpayer does. It is most notable in recent years looking at the rising tax figures how the taxpayer is paying for this burden of assessment of higher valued revenues and spending to that limit.

In 1984 Canadians thought they got rid of the Liberals. They brought in debt and deficits that were concerning people, so we brought in the Conservatives. We thought they were talking about restraint, and talk about sitting at the trough. We put up with these folks for four years.

In 1988 we were at this terrible decision making point. We could not go back to the Liberals because they blow money like yesterday's business. We were not very comfortable with the Conservatives, but maybe they just needed another four years. So we brought in the Conservatives again. Well, it was trough city after that.

The Conservatives knew it. They figured that as they were probably going to go out anyway, just before the 1992 election they would raise the revenues and spend money. Then if the Liberals got in they would be stuck with it because the Conservatives had spent money based on erroneous, highly projected revenues. If the Liberals did get in they would wonder what had happened.

This has been going on for decades. I have to ask why is it we do not elect the government we want. What we really do is throw out the government we do not want. That is why today there are 52 Reformers sitting in this House. I can assure you at the next election we are going to throw out a government we do not want. The people are finally going to have an opportunity to elect the government they do want, notwithstanding all this rhetoric we hear here. We are going to stick with it and keep talking about deficit reduction and we mean it. It is not rhetoric.

Canadians did elect the Liberals as the government thinking they would have a great opportunity to see this tough budget in 1993. Several of us, me included, went into a lockup. We were looking for the savings, the reductions, and all of the changes that would come. The Liberals were going to help the country. What we saw was some increased revenues and they were going to spend the same amount of money. This is the same old story we have been getting. Meanwhile the debt climbs and climbs. Under the auspices of increased revenues we get more spending.

We hear the talk today about social programs. For one whole year we have been studying social programs from this side of the House and yesterday, we received a discussion document, not an action document, a discussion document. That is kind of sick when you think about it. We have had a year to take some action. We are overspending by $40 billion a year and we get a discussion document. What do the people at home think of this House that is supposed to provide leadership, this House that is supposed to take action? The reports already coming into my office ask why some action could not be taken.

We did hear from the press, not from the government, that there is possibly $7.5 billion in savings over five years. That is a mega whopping $1.5 billion a year. We overspend by $40 billion a year so $1.5 billion does not even make a dent, folks. This comes from an accountant. I think I can even add that much.

I can say this. The government is trying to bail out a sinking ship with a thimble. It does not work that way and even buckets will not help now. We need a sump pump to drain this system. Yes it will hurt a little bit, but have the courage. We will show this government how to have some courage. We just have to take it on the chin a little bit, that is all.

If the Liberals really meet their budget plan we are blessed in this country with a deficit of about $26 billion a year. This is the plan to balance the books, $26 billion a year. Over four years we are running over another $100 billion in debt. That is the thimble we are dealing with. It is not sound and it is not reasonable, but it is rhetoric.

If the Liberals do not cut they have to play with the revenues. That is what they are going to do and that is why my bill kicks in place. We want an independent third party to look at these revenues. We want another assessment of these numbers.

When they are looking at revenues do not discount the cash cow of RRSPs. Although their budget numbers will vary widely on how much revenue they can get from that, you may be sure there is a cash cow there and they do have a focus on those savings. In fact our leader and others in our party have asked in the House of Commons several times in Question Period: "What are you doing with RRSPs?" The answer is always: "Well, we can't say right now". The fact is they are going to dip into it.

Let me tell the House what some people think about that. I hope this government does not think that people are not concerned about it already. This is an unsolicited letter to me from a chartered accountant. Her name is Ruth Gillies. She wrote:

This letter is to express my strong concern over recent sabre rattling by Revenue Canada to tax retirement savings. I feel that threatening those people who are attempting to deal responsibly with their future needs, rather than relying on the system to provide help as and when needed, provides a strong disincentive for people to act responsibly.

Disincentive to act responsibly. We are hearing that not just about RRSPs but also about the social system changes we are looking at.

It also occurs to me that threatening to tax retirement savings, which is obviously offensive, might be viewed as an effective psychological weapon so the Canadian populace will be thrilled when the proposed charge of first degree murder is subsequently reduced to manslaughter.

I understand the government's need to deal with the deficit issue.

I think Ruth probably understands that need a little more than this government; she is a CA. She goes on to say:

I feel more like a victim or prey rather than the cause of the problem. I feel more like I am being done to rather than being done for.

Do you understand what she is saying here?

In my opinion we need responsibility accounting and good value for our money that government spends.

Now understand this:

A deficit arises when spending exceeds revenue.

I have to say that again. Deficit arises when spending exceeds revenue. This is the new axiom for the Liberal Party.

I do not feel that cost control and expenditure reduction measures have been fully explored or exhausted by our fiscal managers.

We and millions of other people in this country do not feel that way either. The letter goes on to say:

I already feel I am paying my fair share and sometimes, to be honest, a little more than my fair share. I am very disturbed by being constantly asked to pay more. Before I make any more payments I want to know where, why, when and how the debt arose for which I am presumed to be liable.

Is that common sense or what? She is a chartered accountant. It is not somebody with no knowledge of the finances of this country. In the event that this government believes I drew this letter up from Ruth Gillies, I just received another one today that puts it even more basically. I do not think Scott Leaf is an accountant but here is what he has to say:

I am writing you to demand that you oppose any tax grab on money within registered retirement savings plans.

I am 28 years old and have been putting away the maximum RRSP contribution that I am allowed for 3 years. I am not wealthy. I make approximately $30,000 a year.

My wife and I survive on one income at present, while I support her in university. We forgo trips, and most of the things that others our age do not, in order to plan for our future. I would love to go on a cruise or buy a house but we have followed all the advice from both government and the private sector and have saved.

If the government taxes our money within our RRSP it is a slap in the face to us. I am thoroughly disgusted with even the thought of taxing money within RRSPs. I already know that I cannot count on a government pension in the future or even a company pension. Therefore I demand that you condemn any change that will start the process where people will not be able to count on their own retirement savings either.

Why am I interested in this revenue part? The Reform Party has been talking cut, cut, cut expenditure, wise decision making, good sound fiscal management in expenditures. We have looked at the revenues, but we need that independent third party to look at it because we cannot trust what is coming from the crew over there.

Ruth Gillies had actually talked about some stupid spending. I was talking to a fellow today and he says: "Talk about stupid spending. They spent $661,463 to solicit public comment and preach restraint at a series of conferences leading up to last February's budget". Folks, I do not think they got $661,000 worth because they did not listen. Of that total, $37,800 was spent on travel expenses. There was $10,850 spent for a consultant to recruit members of the public to attend meetings. This is very wise spending on behalf of the Liberals because they cannot get people to attend meetings. There was of course $6,050 for a writer to craft four speeches delivered by the finance minister. I suppose he does not have enough staff to do that. We have to forgive him for that.

I want to mention excuses made about revenues. In 1984 the Liberal government brought in a budget, Marc Lalonde's budget. Among the comments made in the revenue portion of it was: "It is planned for stable inflation. We have a job creation program". That was 1984. Ten years later the Liberals are still planning for job creation programs. They had a medium term strategy for deficit reduction. I guess that one did not work either.

They had a planned unemployment decline from 11.9 per cent to 7.7 per cent. This is in justification of increasing revenues so they could spend more money. None of these things came true. Growth in personal income and revenues were expected to grow more rapidly than GNP from 15 per cent in 1983-84 to 15.9 per cent.

What happened? In 1985 Michael Wilson said: "We missed the target somewhere along the line. We don't know what happened but there was a sharp slowdown in growth of budgetary revenues in 1983-84", but it was due to the 1981-82 recession. I have to ask: Why did Mr. Lalonde's budget not pick that idea up? It was two years before that.

The fact is that the Liberals already knew it was going to affect revenues but they kept it high so they could spend more money. That kind of forecasting in the circles I have worked in as a certified management accountant is just unbelievable. That kind of forecasting is actually unacceptable.

At the very least the government should take its revenue projections and discount them. I would suggest that the government should take a very hard and direct look at this bill. It does not have the wisdom to make the decisions. They need a second opinion.