Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Security Programs

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express on behalf of my colleagues and millions of Canadians profound disappointment in the social policy discussion paper tabled by the minister in this House and presented to Canadians.

The government has been in office for almost a year. It promised an action plan to reform Canada's frayed and overburdened social safety net. I remind the House it was an action plan that was to have resulted in legislation this fall. Instead it has produced a discussion paper listing various proposals without any clear plan of action by the government to meet the very real needs of the young, the old, the sick and the poor, without any clear commitment on the part of the government to get to the root of the problem of any real reform in the social safety net.

As a discussion paper the document is severely flawed because the options it offers are limited and vague and because there is no information on the costs of proposed programs. Since affordability under the current circumstances is a key criterion the absence of price tags and detailed cost estimates vaguely undermines the discussion paper's usefulness as a consultation document.

What is so tragic is that the real discussion of social policy and social reform has been going on in this country for years among ordinary people, among taxpayers, among certain academics, among the victims of the systems, among real reformers, but not among Liberals.

The federal government is not really in a position to lead a discussion on social reform. It simply needs to get in on the discussion which is already far advanced. Since the government's social policy review falls so far short of what was promised and expected, it falls to other members of this House to do three things.

First, we need to make clear to the minister what is unacceptable about the current operations of social programs in Canada. We need to spend some time on the unacceptability of the status quo. Second, we need to enunciate the principles of genuine social reform that should be applied to the hodge podge of proposals in this paper, principles that would form the basis of a real action plan in the months and years ahead. Third, we need to challenge the minister to address the root of the problem in reforming the social safety net, namely the over centralization of power and responsibility in Ottawa.

Allow me to respond to the minister's proposals under these three headings. First, on the unacceptability of the status quo, Canadians are committed not just in their heads but in their hearts to helping their fellow citizens in need. In a country such as ours it is simply not acceptable for children to be growing up without adequate food, housing, care or education.

It is not acceptable for senior citizens to be living out their years with inadequate care and resources. It is not acceptable for sick people to wait on longer and longer hospital waiting lists for fewer and fewer hospital beds. It is not acceptable for hundreds of thousands of able bodied working Canadians to be chronically unemployed and underemployed.

It is not acceptable that the billions of hard earned taxpayers' dollars that Canadians generously provide to the three levels of government every year for social spending are so mishandled that the basic needs of individuals and families are not met. It is not acceptable that the government respond to the needs of today by forcing the cost on to the Canadians of tomorrow through massive public borrowing. Growing public debts only contribute to the impoverishment of future Canadians.

Finally, it is not acceptable for a government that has been in office for a year to respond not with an action plan but with an inaction plan that will at best serve the government as an excuse for further delays. It is not acceptable that the paper fails to provide the cost estimates that are essential to a meaningful discussion. It is not acceptable that the major areas of social policy, including old age pensions and health care, both of which are in deep financial trouble, are being put off to some future date. It is not acceptable that legislation flowing from the discussion paper may take years to reach the House.

I want to impress upon the minister and his colleagues the unacceptability of the status quo.

Let me turn to principles of real reform. Allow me to list three principles of real social reform which would allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff in this paper and to separate those proposals which merely perpetuate or tinker with the status quo from those which would really meet the needs of the young, the old, the sick, the poor or the unemployed.

The first principle, social spending, in particular transfers to individuals, should be targeted to those among us who are most in need. Universality, where universality has come to mean that the taxpayers should pay 100 per cent of the bills for social services 100 per cent of the time regardless of the resources available or the financial status of the individual being served, should be abolished as a principle in the design of social programs. This traditional definition of universality is a Liberal invention whose wastefulness has ensured its extinction.

Traditional universality should be replaced by the principle of universal access to public support provided a real need exists and can be demonstrated. In days gone by the principal objection to needs based public support was that it required individuals to complete a means test. Today with the universality of the income tax form, targeted social spending is administratively feasible as well as desirable from a policy standpoint.

The grab bag of proposals that the minister has presented us with includes a couple of items that pay lip services to targeting social benefits to those in need such as the proposal for a targeted child benefit. However, if the minister were really serious about targeting social spending he would have included in his discussion paper figures and charts to illustrate how much of social spending is currently being transferred to people in various income categories including people who do not need it and how that social spending should be retargeted.

The Reform Party has conducted scores and scores of public discussions on targeted social spending. This is hardly a new subject, but the public is not stupid. In such meetings it asks hard questions: "Show us the current distribution of government transfers to individuals and households for OAS, for UIC and for Canada assistance. Who gets what? What households at what income get what benefits? Only then can we tell you whether the current distribution is fair or wasteful or needs to be tipped more to those in lower income brackets". We cannot have a proper discussion of targeted social spending without that data, yet the minister's paper fails to provide those.

The second principle, social programs should be financially sustainable. Social spending overall should be on a pay as you go basis, not continually financed through deficit spending. This means that the current levels of social spending must be reduced since the federal deficit cannot be eliminated solely through cost cutting in other areas of spending. Continued deficits simply impoverish future Canadians and ensure their dependence on an unravelling social safety net which is not financable in the future.

Transfers of wealth from better off Canadians to those who are truly in need are clearly well supported by Canadians but transfers from future Canadians to current Canadians through public debt are not, nor are inefficiencies and wasteful uses of taxpayers' money, nor are fraud and abuse.

In some cases the tax system should be used to recover all or some of publicly funded financial assistance provided the persons or households whose income levels exceed specified levels. This could include, for instance, relatively well off individuals who temporarily receive benefits between jobs.

If the government were serious about ensuring the financial sustainability of social programs it should have done two things. First, the discussion paper should have included the cost of the various alternatives and should have compared those with the cost of existing programs. Its failure to do this is the biggest single flaw in the document.

How can Canadians have meaningful discussions of alternative proposals when they have no idea of what they will truly cost?

The minister is still not adjusted to the fiscal realities of the 1990s. It is the 1990s, not the 1960s. It is irresponsible in the public arena and particularly in this Chamber where we are spending $110 million more per day than we collect in revenues.

It is irresponsible to propose anything, any policy option, without answering the three basic fiscal questions, what will it cost, where will you get the money, and why do we not spend less.

Second, the government should have established clear spending priorities, not just for social spending, but for the entire federal government. I have to wonder where those priorities are when the government proposes ending federal funding to post-secondary education while still spending billions of dollars to subsidize businesses, special interest groups and crown corporations.

Finally, in questioning the commitment of the government to financially sustainable social programs I note the absence of any clear plan to target and reduce social spending by the amounts required to meet the government's own deficit targets.

The third principle, the meaning of social needs should be personalized, privatized and decentralized so that individual families, communities and lower levels of government, not the federal government, are the primary actors. The best way to determine and respond to real needs is through empowerment at the personal family and community level. Big programs managed by central governments are enormously inefficient at getting the right help to the right people at the right time, enormously wasteful of taxpayers' resources and generosity.

Shared jurisdictions and shared cost programs must be eliminated. They lessen accountability for results, reduce the incentive to be cost efficient, breed bureaucracy, reduce flexibility and inhibit the application of common sense.

The patchwork of overlapping rigid bureaucratic social programs must evolve toward a single access point, enabling people in need to seek assistance through the empowerment of individuals and community oriented caseworkers. The empowerment of individuals and families is to be particularly encouraged because such empowerment reduces dependence on the state.

The distribution of federal transfers in support of education through vouchers is to be encouraged because it empowers individuals. The strengthening of families through more generous tax credits for the support of children is to be encouraged because the family is better able to meet the needs of children than any government. The single biggest cause of child poverty is family breakdown. To reduce child poverty, strengthen the family.

The delivery of social services by the level of government closest to the people and most responsive to the people, most accountable to the people, is to be encouraged. This requires recognition by the federal government that it is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, the government closest to the people.

The minister said in his statement earlier today that he has a commitment to decentralization. It is to be believed because it is written down in this green paper. The two pages he mentioned incidentally are dividing pages, just dividers.

Why should the provinces or anyone believe that assertion of commitment to decentralization because it is written in this paper when it is written in the Constitution of Canada that the responsibility for health, education and social assistance belongs to the provinces? That has not deterred the federal government from involving itself in centralizing programs in those areas through the use of its spending power.

If the government were really serious about decentralizing social programs, empowering individuals and freeing them from the iron grip of bureaucracy, it would have included specific options for turning over more responsibility, not just entering into administrative arrangements, for program delivery to communities, private organizations, and other levels of government.

I might add that in no area is the unwillingness of the federal government to decentralize power more evident than in the field of health care which is not even discussed in this paper. The total health care bill for Canada last year was $70 billion. Of that total 48 per cent was picked up by the provinces and local governments, 28 per cent by individuals and by private insurance companies, and less than 24 per cent by the federal government. Yet it is the federal government that presumes to dictate the terms of service and financing in the health care field for all other players, a position which prevents rather than facilitates genuine health care reform.

The federal government professes to be just a partner in health care. In reality it has become a junior, junior partner. But it always acts like the senior partner which is why the provinces and the public are so sceptical about government's professed interest in new partnership arrangements.

In conclusion I want to spend a couple of moments on getting to the root of the problem in social reform. I challenge the minister to reveal to the House the real reason he has presented a discussion paper rather than an action plan.

The reason is that he has been unable to reach substantive agreement with the provinces, the governments to which the Constitution assigns primary responsibility for health, education and welfare, the governments without whose support and co-operation meaningful social reform is impossible.

I challenge the minister to reveal to the House the real reason he has been unable to get the co-operation of the provinces in a substantive way. The reason is that his government is committed to status quo federalism, that his government and his leader are not committed to a rapid and substantive decentralization of power, particularly in the areas of health, education, social assistance and social insurance.

Until the federal government does become committed to such a decentralization, most of which can be done within the existing Constitution, I predict that status quo federalism will lead to nothing but the perpetuation of an unacceptable status quo with respect to Canada's social safety net.

Who will lose? It will not be the political elite and the special interests that support and feed off the current centralized system, but the young, the old, the sick, the poor, the unemployed, the taxpayers of today and the taxpayers of tomorrow.

My colleagues and I intend to challenge the minister to play catch-up ball, to move beyond vague discussions to real reform. We intend to challenge the minister to provide a detailed cost analysis of any options he proposes and set the social spending priorities. We cannot have a discussion without that material.

Above all, my colleagues and I intend to challenge the minister and the Prime Minister to get to the root of the problem of reforming the social safety net, namely 30 years of overcentralization of the power and responsibility for meeting social needs in the hands of the federal government.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, investing in people is the government's number one priority in this exercise of social security review. It is stated:

In the economy of the 1990s, it is information and knowledge-based industries that are providing the foundation for jobs and economic growth. Canadians must have the skills, opportunities, and knowledge to meet the demands of the new job market.

This is directly from the red book. By Canadians we mean all Canadians: aboriginal peoples fighting against the odds; youth making the transition from school to the workforce; sole parents balancing family and employment needs; women and their children struggling; and Canadians who find themselves in transition between jobs, some for short periods but many and frequently for too long are displaced out of their jobs; and displaced older workers looking for hope in the form of a new opportunity, perhaps a new job. These are the Canadians we promised to help in the red book.

These goals have not changed and we are now looking at how best to achieve them. The discussion paper released yesterday gives Canadians a chance to debate what is necessary, what is possible with the resources available to us. Our government has identified employability as a fundamental goal of social programming. As the National Anti-Poverty Organization has correctly noted, the best social security for an individual is a decent job paying decent wages.

The response has been swift to the document tabled. I must say I have had the opportunity to meet with some good people this very day and over the last day or so who have responded. I met this morning, for instance, with Jonathan Murphy of the Social Planning Council of Edmonton. I quote what he said:

We are supportive of the emphasis on training and breaking the cycle of unemployment. There are 40,000 children in Edmonton growing up in poverty. The extended child benefit program will help them. We must maintain national standards for a social safety net. We have a real fear of separate agendas which would undermine national goals for Canadians.

These are the expressions of people. I have also had the opportunity to meet with the aboriginal leaders because we are engaging in and embarking on a process for the aboriginal people by which they will participate. We are working hard to achieve a process they all agree to.

Having said that, we now know that technological change has altered the look of a decent job beyond recognition. Consider the future that lies before a young woman of 18. Perhaps she is just starting a community college program this year. Can anyone predict the skills she will need in the workplace of the year 2030? Of course not. What we can predict is that her education will not end when she graduates from college. She will need to keep learning. In fact the means to social security is not simply a job today; it is the ability to get a job at any one point in anyone's life. That depends on developing and enhancing skills all through life.

Let me go to what the leader of our country has to say on the whole issue. In Quebec City on September 18 the Prime Minister outlined four key components of the government's job and growth agenda. Quite clearly we cannot operate in isolation on any massive reform and expect to have the answers to all the questions. However, listen to this. The first is reforming social security. The second is ensuring a healthy fiscal climate. The third is reviewing government programs and priorities. These sound like some of the things the government is undertaking, quite clearly. The fourth is strengthening the performance of the Canadian economy in investment, innovation and trade.

Members should know that the Prime Minister is embarking on a trade mission to China with a delegation. These are things he has stated and these are things we are living up to on a daily basis. We are working hard to draw in the support and confidence of all Canadians.

Not only are we undertaking government programs, services, and reviews of policies, programs and services, but we are essentially appealing to the public to build the confidence, the trust, to ensure that we do not engage in empty evangelism, that we do not create false hope and that we are in fact doing things that will result in substantive moves for people to improve the quality of their lives.

With the time available to me in the debate today I want to focus on how large a part of social security reform evolves around learning for children, for youth, for adults; learning in our cities, towns and most isolated communities; learning for everyone; and learning for life.

Everyone here understands that learning is the key to employability. The willingness to work hard no longer guarantees a job. The fact that a person has an education is no longer a guarantee, but it is better than having nothing which guarantees nothing, almost for sure, no opportunities. Competition from other countries and automation have ensured that the new jobs in our economy demand a higher and broader set of skills. People who stop their education early limit their employability. People who keep learning improve it.

Since the second world war federal contributions have helped build and operate an extensive and accessible system of post-secondary education. This government has continued those efforts.

In April we launched our youth employment and learning strategy. One element of the strategy was a series of improvements to student aid. How did we improve the Canada student loans program? It was, first, by increasing the weekly loan limits for full time students by 57 per cent; by raising the ceiling on loans for part time students to $4,000; and by creating opportunities, special opportunities grants that will provide an extra $3,000 to single parents pursuing their studies part time.

For students with disabilities and women in Ph.D. programs we will be offering a national program of deferred grants for the first time that will help high need students who would otherwise face extremely high debt loads on graduation. At the same time we realize that the educational status quo has problems.

The traditional distinctions between community colleges and universities tend to raise barriers that may no longer be relevant. We need to examine the way in which learning is structured and the support available.

Having mentioned the status quo, I cannot emphasize enough that we know the status quo is not an option, that things cannot remain the same. Whatever our political stripe, whatever our concern or constituencies, we know as a country that we have an obligation to look at change. We have to be able to change things so that every Canadian who is drawn into the debate and every Canadian who benefits from the debate will know that we have done the right thing by not burying our heads in the sand and turning away from the greatest opportunity to have courage to change for the country, to change for the people, to change for poor children, to change for the people who are unemployed cyclically, to change for the people on intergenerational unemployment insurance, intergenerational poverty laden with social assistance. It is a very difficult situation.

We cannot avoid the opportunity to have the courage and the vision to engage in a debate in earnest with no hidden agendas, with no weasel words or sneakiness, to go out there and ask the people and consult with them; not to prescribe, not to come in with an ironclad and iron fisted approach that says this is our way and this is the way we are going to do it. The way we want to engage in this debate is to be honest and open and to appeal to the public to recognize that there has to be an opportunity to make a difference with their consensus and with their consultation.

We have received a great many letters from people who have told us just how difficult the idea of turning lifelong learning into reality can be. For many, of course, the issue is money. The discussion paper offers ideas to fund post-secondary education. It considers the method of improving access for people who want to upgrade their skills. It recognizes that we have a role in supporting post-secondary education. We must continue to do so.

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 cash transfers. We have already told the provinces and territories that funding for post-secondary education will return to the level of $2.1 billion in 1996 and 1997. It might best serve the public to know what we spend money on.

Quite clearly federal expenditures on social security programs should be stated as such. We spend a total of $38.7 billion. We spend $12.4 billion on UI regular benefits. For UI developmental uses we spend $1.9 billion. Employment programs, the consolidated revenue fund has $1.4 billion. For vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons we spend $0.2 billion. Child tax benefits, $5.1 billion. The Canada assistance plan yields $8.2 billion. Canada student loans $0.5 billion. Post-secondary education, established programs financing, $6.1 billion. UI administration $1.2 billion. UI maternity, parental adoption and sickness benefits $1.7 billion. This of course does not include seniors. The review we are talking about excludes a whole section.

Something else the public might find extremely interesting is that under the social assistance to heads of households we have a listing of percentages. Those people who are unemployed but are employable, who would work if there was the opportunity, are 45 per cent. Lone parents constitute 28 per cent. Disabled 20 per cent and others 7 per cent. These are statistics that I think people need to be aware of in dealing with the whole issue of reform. People want to know where the money is going and what it is being spent on.

One thing we should also make the public very aware of is very clearly and simply the objectives for the reform stated clearly here in this document. The first is jobs, helping Canadians get and keep work by ensuring that they have the knowledge and skills to compete with the best labour forces in the world, support for those most vulnerable, those who feel that we are undertaking this reform on the backs of the poor.

Hear me now. In this document it is stated that we would provide support for those most vulnerable. That of course includes the poor. Providing income support for those in need while fostering independence, self-confidence and initiatives

and starting to tackle child poverty. Affordability cannot be avoided. Making sure that the social security system is within our means and more efficiently managed with a real commitment to end waste and abuse. This quite clearly addresses some of the concerns that have been stated to date. It has not been long but we have had some response.

How can we make the best use of this money? Broadening student access and the whole issue of learning. Broadening student access is the best way. Tuition fees by the provinces and territories have moved the cost of education back to the students.

The paper offers an interesting option, end the cash transfer for institutional support quickly and expand student loan opportunities instead. We estimate that a $500 million student aid program would make accessible $2 billion in loans every year. The target for that money could be older students who want to add to their skills and people who want to retrain as well. There are other options to help finance their education. For example, another idea that is being tossed about is using the moneys accumulated in registered retirement savings plans. Another option is the income contingent repayment plan.

Many of us have heard from constituents who have graduated but who are having a difficult time repaying their student loans. People are not reluctant to contribute to their own well-being, to their own promotion and their own development. However, they want to engage in a process that will be simpler, more equitable, fairer and more reasonable. We agree with that. We think that there is a way that can be done and we want to hear from people about that. If they have found work it may not pay well enough initially to make ends meet. That is a major concern.

Income contingent repayment works well in Australia and New Zealand. It permits people to repay their loans on the basis of their incomes. They also permit the use of limited public funds to meet emerging priorities. Partnerships with the federal government and the private sector are key to this approach. These options improve employability on the base of a shared responsibility and shared contribution.

I understand that the time for debate is not as long as we would all like so I am going to skip over to some of the things that I feel are really essential. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at engaging in a process with the aboriginal First Nations group. We need to establish a process that we all agree to. We continue to do that but I think something that we really need to emphasize is the role that my constituents play.

I, like any other member in the House, have a constituency, the Northwest Territories. We have a post-secondary education system of learning called Arctic College. If you ever want to tour the college campus you will have to bring your mukluks or your sneakers, Mr. Speaker, because the campus is three million square kilometres. It is spread throughout the north. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, knows only too well how difficult and how long it takes to traverse and how inclement the conditions can be up there.

That brings me to the reason for this reform. I have had the opportunity to discuss with the aboriginal peoples. Each of these objectives, as I stated initially, is going to meet the needs and priorities of aboriginal people if we have a process that they can engage in. Aboriginal peoples want education and training opportunities like all Canadians. As the situation stands now, the aboriginal unemployment rate is approximately twice the Canadian average rate. Almost half of all aboriginal adults have incomes of less than $10,000.

According to the 1990 aboriginal peoples surveyed, the social assistance dependency rate for registered Indians on reserve was over 41 per cent. The dependency rate for registered Indians off reserve was 57 per cent. The dependency rate for the population as a whole for Canadians other than aboriginal populations was only 7 per cent.

The aboriginal population is very young. Its birth rate is twice the Canadian average. Among the Inuit 43 per cent are under 15 years old. In recent years strides have been made in improving education for this young population. The good news is that we have resolved to do something about the problems that we have. There are many partnerships being forged and many efforts being undertaken by First Nations themselves. The number of status Indians enrolled in post-secondary education institutions nearly doubled in the five years between 1986 and 1991. This is an overall increase of approximately 22,000 students who are currently in post-secondary education, according to my colleague, the minister of Indian and northern affairs. That is something that we are all proud of and we all want to continue to make work effectively.

The enrolment of on-reserve children in kindergarten, elementary and secondary schools has increased from 72 per cent of school age children in 1960-61 to 91 per cent in 1990-91. The federal government's head start program will also create a unique opportunity. We will see the positive results as healthier, stronger and more confident aboriginal children entering their school years. However, much remains to be done.

No segment of the Canadian population faces a more glaring need for effective social policy measures, enhanced opportunities, reducing barriers, investing in people, addressing specific individual and community needs than does the aboriginal population.

The government has taken a number of steps to assist in developing and assessing the implications of social security reform for aboriginal peoples. The objective is to establish an inclusive approach in consultation an in co-ordination with aboriginal peoples.

We will be participating and ensuring-myself specifically, along with the minister and the government-meaningful aboriginal involvement in the social security reform process in the upcoming months. Social security reform can provide aboriginal peoples with a unique opportunity to foster effective delivery of social services that will have an immediate impact on their communities.

The governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories for instance have launched a strategic initiative to help social assistance recipients. Investing in people will provide them with counselling, career and employment development, life skills, on the job experience and education.

By creating opportunities and reducing dependency, we can work toward building upon the hope and promise of Canada's youth, both within and outside the aboriginal communities. I commend the Government of the Northwest Territories for the steps they are taking to help northerners to better themselves. They have undertaken their own track and I am sure they will integrate their views into this.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is not just about one Canadian, one organization, one special interest group. This is about the direction in which our country will go. This is about the way we want to see the quality of life affected for every child in this country. This is about the way that we as a a government want to reinvent the direction in which government goes to serve the public, to serve every Canadian.

This is the way we want to balance those elements we have all talked about from all sides of the House. It is about jobs, about affordability and about vulnerability, not to avoid the people who most need our help, but to provide reform for all of our country and for every Canadian. We welcome their participation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the hon. member in her capacity as a woman and as the status of women critic. I would like to know what she thinks of the Minister's proposal that unemployment insurance benefits be reduced and based on family income in the case of the frequently unemployed.

We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and part-time jobs. I would like to ask the member if she does not see these measures as being regressive for women's financial equality.

Another aspect of the Minister's proposals suggesting that the benefits be based on family income is that a woman's benefits will be subordinate to her spouse's income. Does the hon. member not feel we are still treating women as citizens of-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I want to remind colleagues that following the interventions by member we are subject to a 10-minute question or comment period.

With your permission, would the hon. member please be good enough to repeat her question. I will not count the time.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks as a woman and as the status of women critic. I would like to know her opinion on the minister's proposal that unemployment insurance benefits be reduced and based on family income in the case of the frequently unemployed.

We all know that it is mostly women who hold temporary and part-time jobs. Is the hon. member not of the opinion that these measures would bring women's financial equality backwards?

I would also like to hear the views of the hon. member on the Minister's proposal that the family income be taken into account when establishing the level of benefits. Does she not think it is a regressive measure showing that women are still second class citizens?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member took the opportunity to ask a question. She makes remarks about the unemployment insurance changes proposed and also about family income and support.

Those are subjects for debate and consultation. Those are matters on which we are asking the public to give us their views. We are engaging in a public process. I am sure she has her own specific views.

I would like to allow the public to make up its mind. I will be dealing, as I indicated, with aboriginal women, friendship centres, the four national aboriginal groups, northerners, Canadians from all parts of the country. I will be meeting with people in Kamloops tomorrow. I will be listening, as should the other parties be listening to the public.

I mentioned in my speech this is not prescriptive. We are not going to tell people what it should be. We want to ask them for their responses to the proposals we have put out there.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know there will be consultations, but nevertheless, members on the government side do make proposals.

We heard speeches by the hon. member and the Minister. We would like to know, since I imagine they have a very clear position on this, what the hon. member thinks of the proposal that women's unemployment benefits could be based on their spouse's income. Could the hon. member tell us what she thinks of that? Does she agree or not with the fact that from now on women would no longer be treated as equal to men because, since their spouse would have a higher income, their benefits would decrease? If we ask Canadians for their opinion, I think they will want to know what their representatives think of these proposals.

As the hon. member is also a Cabinet member, I suppose she participated in the discussions and she surely has an opinion on this measure. I do not ask for her views on the other points, but only on this particular one. What is her position? Does she approve of that proposal?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as the elected member for Western Arctic my constituents will know, as should my colleague, that I have not had the opportunity to go across my constituency to consult with them.

I will be having a town hall meeting next week and will be able to come back to the member and tell him, I am sure, there are divergent views on what has been proposed. There will be peculiarities to different people that have certain opinions about the proposals that we have put forward.

My view is that we are looking for opportunities for all Canadians. Not all women and men have spouses. For those who have that question will be dealt with when we have concluded the consultations.

I am not going to get drawn in on a broad, massive move that the government has taken on one issue. I am going to allow the debate to proceed and keep my opinions to myself until I have democratically consulted with my constituents.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member was unable to answer, or even to defend what is in the document which is supposed to be a discussion paper, because the provisions which the member for Quebec has referred to are totally unacceptable. That the government even thought that unemployment benefits for women could take the family income into consideration is totally unacceptable and a step backwards that the entire population, for that matter, would certainly not let happen.

Since January, the government has been trying to convince us that there was an emergency in this country. It did not talk about that during the election campaign, but suddenly, in January, the minister of Human Resources Development announced that what was most pressing, most urgent for the development of Canada and its future was a social program reform. A wide reform which should extend to the whole country.

What has happened since that time? The committee on human resources development was given a mandate to consult Canadians on their views. The committee was expected to table its report quickly, on March 25, so that the minister could put his work plan on the table as early as April and the legislation could be passed swiftly in the fall, in order to finally address that urgent problem.

Surprise! The committee on human resources development started its work and had only two weeks to rapidly consult a number of groups and experts. But during that time, the government, without any consulting, decided to cut unemployment benefits and to include in the budget cuts totalling $7.4 billion over three years and affecting social programs, i.e. unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan and established programs financing.

But that was not all. Bombarded with questions, Mr. Martin, the minister, said that he expected additional cuts in the reform undertaken by his colleague. The cat got out of the bag yesterday morning, just in time to colour what is not an action plan any more, but rather a pale green discussion paper, as some reporters have said.

So, the cat that got out of the bag is that over and above the $7.4 billion cuts already voted and included in the budget, the government would cut at least another $7 billion by the year 1999. And yet, there is no rush now. We now have plenty of time to consult the public. There is no action plan any more, only a discussion paper. Why? Because what was urgent was cutting without consulting, without caring about who would be brutally affected, including those children who are said today to be the biggest concern of the government. What a shame! I have to use parliamentary language.

The point I want to make this morning is that this discussion paper, which is supposed to launch a sweeping reform, this discussion paper called Improving Social Security in Canada , does not augur well, either for the people who need it or for the provinces, which are now responsible for all of these areas except unemployment insurance.

It should be said loud and clear, and we will say it again, that this is not a program for people, whether they are unemployed, about to lose their jobs, need an income, are on welfare, or are first-time job seekers. It is not a program for people in need, for

the poor and destitute. It is a program for a government that wants to cut spending, a government that does not have the guts to introduce tax reforms-my colleagues will elaborate-a government that is afraid to tell Employment and Immigration Canada that it cannot ride roughshod over Canadians. The program aims to centralize, and generous though the minister may seem, his idea of decentralizing is travelling around the country and signing programs himself.

This reform is definitely not for people. Let us consider very briefly some of the most frequently quoted reasons for proceeding with this so-called urgent reform. One word we hear constantly is backlog. Programs have a tremendous backlog. Backlog of what? They do not really say, but the impression is that there are too many unemployed for UI to handle. The government calls this a social security program, but everyone will agree that the best social security for people who are able to work is a job. This program has no employment plan, and whenever it refers to what it will do for people who need jobs, it says it will give them the means to look for one.

We are going to turn the unemployed into job seekers. This is not job creation but job search. They say there is a backlog because the economy is changing. Yes, it is changing, and it is changing very quickly. What kind of work does this new economy produce? It produces work that is less permanent. All industrialized countries agree that market globalization, technological change, and changes in family patterns are phenomena that have a major impact on society and employment.

Are these dynamics understood? Hardly. Does the government realize that the main problem-and we do not know how long this will last-is that except for the lucky ones with steady jobs whose numbers are decreasing, jobs are becoming less and less permanent and are held for increasingly shorter periods? Does it realize that there is pressure to reduce the number of unions and thus lessen pressures on the labour market?

The fact facing most people who are employed and all those people who are looking for work is that, in most cases, the jobs available are short-term jobs, either by their nature or because it may be difficult to stay in a particular job. When people say the problem is the backlog, it seems to me there is a backlog in the thinking of those who produced this document, a failure to realize that spending cuts and the old programs the Liberals were never able to implement after trying to do so on so many previous occasions are not the answer. A new approach is needed to deal with these problems.

They were not able to negotiate or legislate any solution, and I will give one example. Parliamentarians who-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. In this House, members may not use exhibits to prove their point. I realize that today we have a working paper which members on both sides of the House will want to use to read a few quotes. However, the Chair cannot allow the use of other exhibits or, taking the extreme case if a member were to use the document we are discussing today, as an exhibit, I think the Chair would have to intervene. That is not the case right now, and I hope it will stay that way. This is a very important subject for the country, and I hope we can have a debate that is both vigorous and respectful of our Standing Orders.

I would not have interrupted the hon. member otherwise, but I wanted to make this point. The hon. member may proceed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I may name the document, a working paper that never had the privilege of being tabled not in this Parliament but in 1973, and was never to progress beyond the colour orange. In fact it was known as the orange paper. Released in 1973 and prepared at the behest of Minister Marc Lalonde, it contained some very interesting items.

Hon. members opposite may wish to read them. I do not agree with everything the paper says, but it is interesting reading. The document attempted to formulate proposals for a social security policy for Canada. In addition to employment, and the paper discusses opportunities for employment, it examined ways of providing Canadians and their families with a consistent income security system. The objective was to define a social policy for Canada.

That perspective is sadly lacking in the green, I would say frosty green, paper. It does not even exist. There is no concern for what happens to people. Their only concern is what happens to the budget, this after refusing to review the tax system and increase revenues, instead of shamelessly cutting social spending.

They have another excuse for introducing reforms. Or, should I say, conducting consultations on reforms, because they are not in such a hurry, they have legislated cuts and, of course, there will be more. In any case, they said the cuts would be announced in the Finance minister's budget. So we are going to have consultations without knowing the extent of these cuts. In other words, Canadians know we are going to have consultations, but on what? The government says it will be about change, and Quebecers are starting to realize what has to be changed.

The other excuse is the lack of flexibility. That is a good one! I know the situation in Quebec, where I worked for awhile. In Quebec, people who have been involved in the fight against poverty and unemployment know how difficult it is because of a lack of flexibility in federal programs and the Canada Assistance Plan.

Allow me to give an extremely significant example: during its first term, the Parti Quebecois decided to help low-income families and individuals stay in the workplace and avoid yielding to the very comprehensible temptation, considering their income, to rely on social assistance. Therefore, the Parti Quebecois decided to raise their income by giving them a supplement

according to their individual and family needs among other things. That program was called SUPRET at the time.

When they came to office the Liberals modified that program because of practical difficulties that had nothing to do with its content. That program later became the APPORT.

What is most inadmissible is that the program did not qualify for a 50 per cent reimbursement under the Canada Assistance Plan because the beneficiaries did not, of course, pass the revenue test since they earned more than the authorized minimum.

That situation went on for years while the province of Quebec-at that time it was still called the province though it is less and less called that way now-tried, to fight against poverty within the system. But we would always come up against the rigidity of the system. Yes, the CAP supported 50 per cent of the costs, but only if the government encouraged these people to stay on social assistance. This is one example of the system's rigidity, but there are many others.

So when we are told that the situation is urgent and that we need a reform because of the rigidity of the system, I fully agree and we should proceed immediately. Except that the government does not have to make a consultation that will last two years before addressing the problems for which he is responsible.

Other reasons have been given, but since time does not stand still, I will leave it up to my colleagues to speak to improvements in education. This is clearly within the jurisdiction of Quebec, or within provincial jurisdiction, in the case of other provinces.

I will conclude by speaking about childhood poverty but first I would like to come back to the proposed options.

In order to convince Canadians that they should accept the cuts it preferred, the government explains that from now on there should be two categories of UI beneficiaries. Obviously the goal is to save money. There would be two categories: the occasional unemployed and those who are frequently unemployed.

The goal is to reduce costs while providing some assistance. We will listen to the consultation but I can tell you that my mind is made up about the system proposed. I believe it will be unacceptable for the following reason: people who hold a job for a long time in a company and lose it when the company closes its doors or because of a recession like the last one in 1981-82, are precisely those who join the ranks of the unemployed. In many cases the unemployed in 1981-82 have been unable to find another job. Since then, many of them have had only odd jobs and the others are on social assistance. Those of 1989-90 who had been spared by the first recession have now joined their ranks.

These people had not turned to unemployment insurance in the past but they are now trapped in the unemployment-odd jobs-social assistance cycle. Why? Because the major problem, the main problem is employment. I will conclude by talking about employment. In order to help those people-because they need help, and the Liberal document of Mr. Lalonde came to the same conclusion in 1973-what must we do? We must provide good career counselling services for all people who turn to unemployment insurance.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, I was completely astonished because in his document the minister said: Yes, we should have good counselling services. Is that not infuriating? He is the minister in charge! What is stopping him, administratively speaking, from taking the necessary steps and creating a good counselling service? There is no need for a two-year consultation process or for an act of Parliament to create good counselling services. The idea was already in the air in 1973. Anyone moderately intelligent knows that when someone is down on his luck, you give him a few months to get back on his feet but first of all, you must help him. What is waiting for him or her? Retraining or job creation support or, rather do we think that the market is sufficient? Beyond that what is there?

There is nothing else, those are the hard facts of life. So how come they suddenly realize that their unemployment period should be used for retraining? We have been saying the same thing for decades. All of a sudden, in a document of some urgency, which says softly that this is urgent, we are rediscovering the need for retraining, yet Quebec has been asking for years to be given full control over job training.

I am running out of time. I have only two minutes left, so I will say: we will come back to that. The proposed reform is not a reform, and neither will it end childhood poverty. Quebec has been through a totally unacceptable situation. In 1965, René Lévesque, then minister of Family and Social Welfare, said during a federal-provincial conference that Quebec wanted to take charge of family allowances in order to use them in a poverty prevention policy.

"The Quebec government is setting up a new social security policy which will involve not only a reorganization of the programs it presently manages, but also the inclusion of reappropriated federal programs which will achieve their full effectiveness only once they are integrated and, if necessary, reviewed in order to be fully coordinated and tailored to the needs of the people they are intended for. Such an integration is necessary because of the obvious necessity to view social measures as an integral part of our general policy on social and economic development".

So spoke René Lévesque, a federalist, in 1965. He argued that the programs would be fully effective only when integrated. Quebec had a plan to integrate all the elements. With this program, this proposed reform, the central government is proposing a Canada where Ottawa pulls all the strings.

It might be the future of Canada, although we are going to fight to keep the present Constitution which recognizes that provinces have jurisdiction over everything, except unemployment insurance. In Quebec, the project requires the approval of the people who want control over their future.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member as well as the one from her leader, the Leader of the Opposition. I find it strange that they should talk about real life, a life rather difficult for many Canadians, without ever mentioning the fact that, today, 25 per cent of children are born to families living below the poverty line. The Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about that. I think it is a national disgrace and, like a majority of the population, I am dismayed by it.

They also talked about students. They said that education was a provincial matter, but the Leader of the Opposition never acknowledged the fact that 40 per cent of young Quebecers never finish their secondary education. This is a tragedy. We know that in industrialized nations like Japan, 95 per cent of their young people graduate from high school. We know that South Korea has the highest per capita number of PhDs.

The Leader of the Opposition did not talk of the high rate of suicide among the young people of Quebec. In this in-depth debate we want to undertake with the people of Canada, the only concern of the opposition, and I found that regrettable, is that we do not mention the reality of life for young Quebecers or Canadians.

I also want to talk about job training. There are 25,000 jobs, 80,000 jobs that remain unfilled in Quebec and Canada through lack of job training. They only talked about university graduates who are a mere 12 per cent of young people. Nothing is said about job training. I am under the impression that the Bloc Quebecois is forgetting the large majority of Quebecers who want real jobs and long term positions.

What we want is to develop specifically designed programs for each region, that is what we heard constituents ask for during both the federal and provincial campaigns. When the federal government gets involved and offers various programs in order to interest young people in training, it wants these young people to take these courses locally. We are prepared to co-operate with local schools or CEGEPs, but not necessarily in large centres like Quebec City and Montreal, where most of the Bloc members come from.

I think we must insist on the fact that, if it is true that reality must be taken into account, we must also acknowledge the failure of the programs and services intended for those who are really in need. As I said before, we must consider the condition of young people, students and single parent families. Those people are not forgotten in our society. Unfortunately, the Bloc quebecois did not say a word yet about them.

In conclusion, I would like to hear the comments of a former minister from the Parti Quebecois. She had the chance to rectify the situation in Quebec and to ensure that young people had better occupational training or better chances to complete their high school. To think that today close to 40 per cent of young Quebecers drop out of high school. What a failure compared to the situation in the rest of the world.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for allowing me to go on with my speech. I would like to add that members opposite are all from the West Island but you. We are glad to have you here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I am sure you will still want to address your comments to the Chair. The member for Mercier has the floor.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not do it again.

I must say that Quebec wanted for quite a while to get control of family allowances-first with René Lévesque in 1965 and then with Castonguay in 1971-because big families were creating a specific problem at the time, and also because the Quebec government was not comfortable with the federal policy. These ministers, federalists and Liberals, wanted to apply a policy aimed at preventing childhood poverty, but were not allowed to do it.

I must add something. The minister's task force was especially interested in preventing poverty among children. It found that the countries which succeeded in preventing childhood poverty were those that applied the policy favoured by René Lévesque and Castonguay, that is to give family allowances to all families instead of waiting for them to be on welfare before helping their children. It is a system which has kept children and family prisoners of poverty; we have been wanting to change it for a long time. The first thing to do to change the system would have been to get control over family allowances, which we were unable to obtain.

When it comes to rigidity and child poverty in Quebec, we can tell you all about it. You caused it with your system. Compare-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. We must have a vigourous debate, but we must avoid constantly engaging in personal attacks, which lowers the debate below the level we are accustomed to in the House of Commons. The member for Mercier.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will watch my language.

I was saying that Canada was reprimanded for not doing enough for children and its policy is clearly to be blamed for it. It is against this very policy that Quebec ministers fought, trying to give families universal allowances in order to prevent child poverty.

[An hon. member]

You were a minister in the Parti Quebecois government.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

That is right, and I am proud of it. I was the minister responsible for the status of women. I too was able to see how rigid the Canada Assistance Plan is; we had to scrape around to find enough money to create day care centres. As you know, Mr. Speaker, daycare is for children under five and child care for children over five.

The Canada Assistance Plan paid 50 per cent of day care expenses, but not private day care expenses-we had plenty of these establishments in Quebec-or child care services provided by schools to prevent children from dropping out.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is a great honour, as the member for the Quebec riding of Outremont, to speak in favour of the reform unveiled today by the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is a major step, an essential one, one we cannot avoid.

It is with pleasure that I stand today in this House since, as I have mentioned previously, the Official Opposition acts according to a self-serving policy and not a policy aimed at helping Canadians in general and even less Quebecers.

On this side of the House, we take the interests of all Canadians to heart and, as far as we, Liberals members from Quebec, are concerned, I must say that we are working relentlessly to ensure Quebec has a voice in this forum, a highly-democratic one at that, where I am particularly proud to rise in support of this fundamental reform, as I said earlier.

Our society has changed considerably over the past five decades. Following the Second World War, the very nature of the work on the job market is constantly changing. Technological changes, globalization of international markets and the need for environmental protection have shaken the job market, especially in the industrialized world.

A great many industries have undergone substantial restructuring, while others completely disappeared. As a result, several traditional job types were eliminated and replaced by news ones that often require higher education levels and, of course, much more specialized skills. On the whole, workers are unemployed more often, as you may have noticed. Unfortunately, they are also out of work for longer periods.

It should be pointed out that the way things work in the family unit has also changed considerably these past few years. Nowadays, in most families, both parents work outside of home. Nowadays, women have entered massively into the labour market and make a major contribution to our gross national product. There is also a larger number of single-parent families and, more often than not, the head of these families are women.

For one reason or another, these women all too often end up in a situation of vulnerability, if not plain poverty. Like my hon. colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said, the sad reality is that, as a direct result of lone parenthood, the category of people hardest hit by poverty is that of children. In Canada today -this is important to note-one child out of five is living in poverty, which I must say is totally unacceptable in a society such as ours, a so-called free and democratic society.

We absolutely must find answers to these problems. And let me tell you that, with our approach as government, we will find solutions and we will find them not in isolation, but all together as a society, the Canadian society. Over the years, successive Liberal governments have put in place, and I am very proud of this achievement, a social security system that reflected our values as Canadians. I can quote a number of examples. Take for instance values such as compassion, equal opportunity and protection for persons in need.

Such values are basic principles that my party, the Liberal Party, has always promoted, and I am quite proud of that. However, social programs did not keep up with the fundamental changes that have occurred in the Canadian economy, technology, family, global competition and our financial situation. It is also obvious that the public authorities have spent beyond their means these past decades. There has been some kind of international surge of government interference.

Unfortunately, we must face the tough reality that today's governments cannot longer afford the luxury of spending. This is a reality we must work with. At the present time, the size of our national debt seriously undermines our ability to pay for services and-it must be recognized-ultimately slows down the Canadian economy as a whole.

It must be pointed out that the federal government spends $38.7 billion a year on unemployment insurance, employment programs, social assistance, post-secondary education, child tax benefits, and on programs for the handicapped.

Despite all this money, we must come to the harsh conclusion that our system does not serve the Canadian people adequately. We must find ways to spend our money-taxpayers' money in fact-in a wiser, more cost-effective way.

The provincial governments also recognize the need for reform. Several of them have already started improving their own social programs. Recently, in a speech he gave in Quebec City on September 18, the Prime Minister perfectly summed up this government's approach when he said this: "Our objective is to put in place a social security system that will protect the most vulnerable and give all Canadians equal chances of developing their potential, living fully and experiencing the dignity of work".

I fully support these principles underlying the reform undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources Development, and I am confident that the Canadian people will also fully support these principles.

In fact, the mandate we, as parliamentarians, received from the Canadian population as a whole is fairly simple: we must help people to become more independent and-I know that we often go back to this-to live in dignity.

That is exactly what is proposed in the discussion paper, the so-called green book before us today. This green book, which is submitted to all Canadians, outlines problems as well as solutions, essentially in three major areas of social security: employment, learning and security itself.

We all know that, for most families, and I think that this should be stressed, a good job is the best form of social security and a guarantee of dignity-a fundamental human value-for those who have jobs, who earn a living.

That is why the federal government will spend $3.3 billion this year on various job training and development programs. Provided they reduce people's dependency on unemployment insurance and social assistance, these programs are-it goes without saying-a good investment for this government. However, current programs and services as we know them no longer fulfil their mandates.

We will probably get better results by offering new employment development services at the local level. The objective is simple: provide new opportunities, help Canadians find jobs and especially-this should be the ultimate goal-help people keep the jobs they found.

Governments could manage these programs more efficiently by focusing more on local needs.

We must create closer partnerships with the provinces. I stress the word "partnership" because the green book as a whole essentially reflects-I will come back to that a little later-a renewed, modern federalism adapted to today's needs, that is, based on partnership. We need partnerships with the provinces, with the private sector, with volunteer organizations, to better serve the population and especially to eliminate waste and duplication. You are now in a position to understand that-to use a common expression-the cat is out of the bag.

We have before us a paper reflecting an open, flexible federalism aimed at making the most of this system of government in the interest of all Canadians. So you can see why the members of the Official Opposition are-as we often say-lashing out. Since they desperately want Quebec to separate, it goes without saying that enhanced federalism undermines their plans, which is why they lack objectivity.

To go back to unemployment insurance, it must be pointed out that, in the beginning, this program was supposed to help people who had lost their jobs by providing temporary income support. In fact, unemployment insurance was simply, as the term implies, a form of insurance. However, in the new economic environment, our social programs must do more than just issue a benefit cheque. They must also give the unemployed a chance to get and keep a job, as I said.

Let us look at some statistics. Last year, 13 per cent of the unemployed had been without work for a year or more. This is three times what the long-term unemployment rate was in 1976. Furthermore, and this is even more disturbing and difficult to accept, nearly 40 per cent of recipients had made at least three applications for unemployment insurance in the previous five years.

In fact, for too many of them, unemployment insurance has become a treadmill that they cannot escape, which I find most unfortunate. People who are frequently unemployed need practical help which, too often, they cannot obtain. Furthermore, many people, especially women and the young, who hold unconventional jobs do not even qualify for unemployment insurance. This is a very serious shortcoming.

We can no longer afford a system that lets people work 12 weeks and collect UI for the rest of the year. This is a hard fact but it is reality. People who are frequently unemployed must be offered practical help and strong measures to enable them to find a job and, as I said before and keep repeating, to hold it.

With a trained labour force, our cities will no doubt attract investments and new jobs much more easily. The government can provide the necessary tools, but we must seek appropriate solutions together, and this question of working together and partnership keeps coming up.

I emphasize that social program reform is a mutual responsibility. We must pay special attention to how we spend and not just how much. The discussion paper, which I call the green paper, of course, proposes two approaches for reforming unemployment insurance.

The first approach is a new two-tier unemployment insurance plan. For occasional claimants who use the system less, the plan would continue to operate as before and provide the same parental, sickness, maternity and adoption benefits.

Frequent claimants who face what I would call a chronic unemployment problem would be entitled to what can be called adjustment insurance. These benefits could be lower, but beneficiaries would have access to more active measures to find work or to acquire training that will eventually lead to a steady job.

The second approach to UI reform involves adapting the present UI system that we know. This approach would treat occasional and frequent claimants the same way. The period of employment required to be eligible for benefits could be longer or the benefit period could be shorter.

Also, the amount of benefits paid could be reduced. I emphasize that when I talk about unemployment insurance reform, it must be said that these are proposals we are making in the green paper and of course we are counting on the public consultation to follow, beginning in November, if my memory serves me, to find out what all Canadians think about the options we are proposing. This is not a policy that will be followed with legislation; it is a discussion paper.

The second point in the green paper of course concerns post-secondary education. As we well know, education in Canada is exclusively in provincial or territorial jurisdiction; however, we must be reasonable and realistic. We must recognize that since Confederation, the federal government has supported post-secondary education because of the basic connection between education and employment.

This support has helped build the system of universities and colleges that we know today in Canada and of which we are so proud. Now, the big new challenge facing higher education, basically, is access. Our system must educate and train many more people than in the past. Training must also be better suited to the new jobs. I think it is important to point out that in the past three years, the number of jobs offered to university graduates increased by 17 per cent, while the number of jobs offered to people who had not graduated fell by 19 per cent.

The idea that only children and young adults have to learn is outdated, since each and every one of us now has to accept the idea of learning as part of life. With continuing education, we can keep a state-of-the-art labour force and a dynamic economy. Canadians must be able to benefit from better opportunities for education and training throughout their working life.

The system must also be modernized so as not to restrict access to education and training, both for young people who are beginning their career and for workers who want to follow developments in the new economy. As you know, the federal government provides over $8 billion a year for post-secondary education, through student loans or transfers to the provinces. The value of the federal contribution is rising every year at the same rate as economic growth.

We must, however, face the hard facts of what I would call our budgetary constraints. The cash portion of the federal transfers will decrease proportionally, and will unfortunately come to an end within ten years.

Instead of letting these cash transfers run out, we must think of better ways to use this money in order to help more people pay for their studies, thus providing better access to education.

In a competitive global economy, the decision to invest in learning, and no one can blame us for showing goodwill, is economically sound, but the investment must be a shared responsibility.

Thus, two main options are introduced in the discussion paper. The first is to stop the cash transfers to the provinces and territories, and use the money instead to make more loans and grants available to individuals. The second would allow more flexibility in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, so that people could use their savings for lifelong learning. In fact, the commendable goal of the government is to maintain and to broaden access to post-secondary education and learning.

In the interest of greater fairness, the government is proposing a system where loans would be repaid according to the student's future income. Here again, I think no one could blame us for trying to create a much fairer system.

Unfortunately, too many people depend on welfare, whereas, if they had effective employment and training support, they could find a job.

Since 1981, the number of welfare recipients has doubled, reaching just over three million. Our social security system must protect the neediest. It is clear from the options proposed in the green paper that that is precisely our goal.

Finally, members opposite are attacking the reform that we are tabling as if it were essentially an undebatable policy. Let it be clearly understood that the government is working for all Canadians.

Some hon. members opposite have said that they have on their drawing boards an idea for an open, cost-effective and modern federalism. I tell them that on our side, the government side, we think their ideas are already outdated, because the paper just tabled by the hon. minister Axworthy is a perfect example of this new federalism.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in 1984, our debt totalled some $175 billion. Since then, it has continued to grow and we are living on credit; each year, we borrow money to maintain our standard of living. The paper tabled yesterday confirms that federalism can no longer afford to provide the social services needed by Canadians.

We now have the proof of that, and it has been given to us by the present Liberal government. It is very simple. When a government cannot fulfil its main mandate, which is to ensure that everyone's health and education needs are satisfied, that they have the basics to survive, and when it officially declares that it can no longer afford to carry out its social mandate, this is proof that that government and that federalism cannot work any more. Like we said 30 years ago in Quebec, the federal government should have decentralized its responsibilities and put social affairs under provincial jurisdiction.

This would have been a very logical process, as we can see today.

Quebecers will understand clearly well that the federal government is going bankrupt. In fact, that was officially announced last evening: the federal government is literally bankrupt. The evidence is there. Let us take a look at the document.

The hon. member for Verdun should say if he agrees with me on that. After all he is from Quebec. He has followed politics-

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Outremont.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Outremont, I am sorry. People from Montreal do not like it when you say Verdun. Outremont is posh, so we have to be very careful. Again, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for referring to the wrong riding.

In any case, the evidence is there regarding this very costly overlapping, whether in the education or health sector, and, as I said, this document confirms that this overlapping has cost so much that the federal government is bankrupt. It is as simple as that.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I resent such comments on my riding. Outremont is a great constituency and I am very proud of it. I am also very proud of the fact that, last October 25, Outremont voters asked me to represent them here. I have every intention of continuing to do so properly and to also represent all Quebecers.

It is rather amusing to see how irresponsible the Official Opposition can be in its approach. The members opposite are irresponsible because they are saying that Mr. Axworthy's Green Paper is an admission that we no longer have-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wish to remind hon. members that they should not mention names but only refer to titles or constituencies. You can say "the Minister of Human Resources Development".