Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Security Programs

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Reform Party has come to the same conclusion as I have. He feels that Canadian students are too heavily indebted, and that this indebtedness can create problems with respect to post-secondary education. He also stated-and I think that we must agree with him-that the key, which is sadly lacking in this document, is employment.

While it is true that university students have a better chance at finding a job than other people, many of them, even though highly educated, have to take a master's degree because they are unable to find work. Some of them even have to go on to their doctorate, because they still cannot find a job, and that leads them deep into debt.

The hon. member spoke of the many advantages to be derived from the student voucher system he put forward, but he did not say where he would get the money for it. His central argument seems to be that he recognizes that the federal government has a funding responsibility with respect to education. The minister's discussion paper and the budget show that the federal government is bent on reducing, and even backing out completely from these cash transfers to provinces.

As he is a former provincial politician, I have another question for him: What role, in his opinion, should the provincial government play in education? He knows very well that education, under the Canadian Constitution, is a provincial area of responsibility. I would like some clarification on the student vouchers he referred to. Where would the money come from? Who would pay?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question. Perhaps I did not explain as clearly as I might have. The intention here is that under the Established Programs Financing Act cash is given to provinces from the federal government. The intention here is that money be given in the form of vouchers to students.

That is where the funding would come from. That is why there is no increase in federal funding over what exists at the present time. That is one point. The second point is in terms of provincial recognition. Absolutely, education is the responsibility of the provinces. This would allow that kind of flexibility to be retained and recognized.

In fact the voucher system could be strengthened immensely if the provinces would do that as well. Then the true freedom of the individual can be expressed to meet the needs that should be there. That will also increase the job opportunities for graduates. Then the programs would be tailored to meet the needs of the job market and at the same time the interests and skills and particular aptitudes of the students.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, if it ain't broke don't fix it. This is what I learned in my days of farming. The social security system of this country is broken. It has been broken for a long time. I would like to give one example of this which occurred in my constituency office only last week.

A middle aged man came into my office and asked if we could find him some money because the telephone company was going to disconnect his phone. He had rolled up a debt of over $1,500. He was drawing social assistance. Before that he was on unemployment insurance. Before that he had been a federal government civil servant.

When I asked what the moneys were for, if they were to find a job, he told us that it was for telephone sex. What have we done with our social system that actually allowed someone to think it was possible that the taxpayers would pay for his perversion?

The social program spending dealt with by the Minister of Human Resources Development's discussion paper is in the amount of $38.7 billion which represents approximately 31.4 per cent of total federal government spending, excluding debt servicing. Our deficit problems are symptoms of a country living beyond its means. It would be nice to go on a foreign holiday but we do not have the bus fare. An unpaid holiday is what we have all been living.

These are the indiscretions of past governments but the problem is now squarely before us today. There are those who will argue to increase taxes. Canada's personal income tax is one of the highest in the western world. At 53.5 per cent our top marginal rate is only second to that of France. We can compare this with 40 per cent in the United Kingdom and 32 per cent in the United States.

Higher taxes actually produce less revenue as people attempt to take their money and finally themselves to more friendly tax environments. We only have to study the history of Argentina to realize this was true. Taxation actually drove that country to financial collapse.

In short, we have only one direction to go and that is in the area of program expenditure reductions. The trick is to execute this in a way that continues to shield those with genuine needs but reward those who are able to bridge the gap to self-maintenance. We must stop the except me philosophy. The fact is that we are all in the soup together and it will need our collective wills to solve these problems. Failure will be an invitation to have others outside our borders decide them for us.

All is not bad in this process. Indeed there is a great opportunity to retool the Canadian economy to make it internationally competitive as well as allow Canadians to regain control of their own affairs.

I would like to speak on three specific areas of reform. The first is unemployment insurance. Instead of a short stopover for displaced workers, the program has become for many a basis of income support, over 40 per cent of regular users of the system. This is not necessarily the fault of any one but it reflects that our economy is changing. This is a symptom of what is known as structural unemployment. We do not need bottle washers because we have machines to do it. Some employers have abused the plan by using it for work stoppages and all sorts of reasons not to do with the original intent of the plan.

Financially the benefits of the program are one of the highest in the western world. It has reduced the productivity of the labour market. Why take that job when unemployment insurance is better than wages, less day care, less travelling costs, et cetera? Indeed Canada's productivity has been declining even during the recession. Clearly this has to stop and unemployment insurance must get back to its original function, that is strictly insurance. We cannot ask the general taxpayer to foot the bill for lower productivity.

Now I would like to address the area of child care. Much talk has and will evolve over the concept of child poverty. When we say this it conjures up images of children starving in the streets, begging and so forth. I have witnessed this firsthand in Peru, in Africa and even in Ireland. I have not witnessed it here in Canada. May I be so bold as to suggest that child poverty is a symptom of the mismanagement of family resources rather than a lack of transfers by government.

I am heartened by a recent case in Thunder Bay where a single woman with two children was able to save over $20,000 in two years while living on social assistance. Personally I do not believe that throwing more money at these situations will in fact alleviate child poverty. It may even increase it as these families will have less incentive to seek gainful employment which may have resulted in a more responsible attitude toward child rearing.

Finally I would like to address the area of post-secondary education. Canada has established an assembly line approach to higher education. Some statistics given regarding the need for higher education are skewed, that is to say we have not properly taken the time to consider what is the cause and what is the effect. For instance, do employers not simply use education as a method of screening job applicants? Does one really need a BA to clean out parking meters? I suggest it may be a disadvantage. This is not to say that we do not need a better educated job force, but it calls into question the type and quality of education.

Somewhere in the past we elected as a nation that we did not want to get our hands dirty. We closed down technical schools. We said that our children would all become doctors and lawyers. Our universities are full to the brim with students in social studies that have no more prospect of getting jobs than do high school graduates.

John Smith in Port Perry sits in grade 10 hating and failing his course in English and French literature. Maybe he will become one of our dropout statistics. In reality John Smith would rather be learning a trade, becoming an auto mechanic or other form of technician. Many of our largest employers regularly bring in trades from Europe because they cannot find them here.

In short, we need a more aggressive apprenticeship training program. We must recognize that technical programs are just as valid as and perhaps even more so than some of our academic programs.

I wholeheartely support the concept of using vouchers for post-secondary education. I would even hazard to take the process one step further by weighing more heavily on providing larger vouchers in support of science and technology as opposed to other programs. This would result in a shift in the skills of our labour force which would allow us to compete head on with the emerging economies of southeast Asia and others. Sue and Sam will need a greater focus toward job expectation than they have had in the past.

In conclusion we have a lot of soul searching to do, but it is also time for action. We must resist the thought that it is not our problem. Canada can move forward toward prosperity in the 21st century but it must renew itself first.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Durham claimed that our system was ill. I have to support his position in this regard. It is true that the system is ill. Of course, we must have the same definition of what he means by system. For us, it is the federal system. It is the one which is now holding up the provinces, especially Quebec, with its duplications, its entanglements and its various restrictions. It is even said somewhere in the document that the authors feel that the federalist system had been too strict in the past.

Tonight, certain comments I heard and the member's view surprise me somewhat. Prime minister Campbell was defeated in the last elections because, one night, she said on television-and I remember it full well-that it would not be appropriate to discuss spending cuts during an election campaign. Later on, when cornered, she had to admit that there would be cuts. A little pushed the same way, the current minister told us before that the reform would not change the level.

What can be felt, now in this House, is that the Liberal Party is seeking a new mandate to cut spending, which it has already begun to do in any case.

I concur with the statement that our system is ill, but not with the other comments of the member. According to him, some people seen in the unemployment insurance office look happy to be there. It is as though they are unemployed on purpose. He did not say that, but he was speaking about regular claimants.

Later on, he spoke of some single women with children who were able to put some money aside. I think this attitude is completely depressing, even if I know that we must respect everyone's freedom of expression in this House.

On post-secondary education, he seems to think there are too many students attending university and that these students choose the wrong field of study. To reduce the number of wrong choices, we should make some study programs less expensive than others. I would like to have more details on this.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I suppose we can look at it in two different ways: We can talk about discouragement or we can talk about encouragement. I suppose I have a tendency to have a more positive attitude to this and think we want to encourage.

I agree somewhat with the member. I do not believe it is the duty of government to make those kinds of choices, but I believe we as a nation need a better and higher technologically trained labour force. I believe it is unjustified for governments simply not to acknowledge the fact that we cannot continue to educate people for jobs that do not exist. We must give our labour force some guidance in the areas in which we think we are going to evolve.

I noticed the member in his comments talked about fiscal irresponsibility. I have often heard members of the Bloc talk about this as if it were a federal problem. In fact deficits are rampant throughout the western world. I would like to point out the fact that the province of Quebec, by its own creation, created a $70 billion deficit and, remarkably enough, 40 per cent of it is financed outside not only the borders of Quebec but the borders of Canada.

The province by itself has some significant problems to deal with. They are not unique to the federal system by a long shot.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I have been in Canada for very close to 34 years. I started working when I was young in British Columbia, then I worked in the province of Quebec, in Montreal. In those days, the Canadian economy depended on the big traditional industries, based on our natural resources.

Our society was almost exclusively white and Christian. Drastic changes have taken place in the last 40 years, in Canada as well as in all industrial societies. Because of those changes, the present economic structure is totally different.

In fact, the whole of society has changed. Today's society is not the one that I found when I arrived in Canada. Accordingly, we must look to a sweeping reform of our entire social security net which, in some areas, has been in place for the past 50 years.

Today in North America more people are working in the computer industry than in the automobile, steel and heavy industries combined. The software industry alone represents a total output of $42 billion. More Canadians today are working in the electronic industry than in pulp and paper, our biggest industry to date. There are as many Albertans working in the financial sector today as in oil and gas.

Today, more Quebecers are working in the health technology industries than in textiles, which used to be Quebec's basic industry. There are more Americans working in the film industry today than there are in the entire automobile industry.

The tragedy of Canadian society, as indeed it is a tragedy of every industrialized country today, is that our social infrastructures, our services, have not kept up with the immense changes in our economy over the last 35 years.

The paradox is that there are jobs in the new industries but these jobs cannot be filled because the skills do not match the jobs that are open. There is a huge jobless pool of people who cannot access available jobs in new industries because of the lack of proper skills.

I represent a riding in which a great number of high tech industries are located, industries in communications, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, software and others. I have spoken to many company executives.

One company, which is highly prosperous and almost unique in the world, exports 97 per cent of its products. This company cannot find enough workers inside Canada to fill 50 per cent of its demand. Of its skilled workforce 25 per cent come from Quebec and 25 per cent come from the rest of Canada. It has to import 50 per cent of its skilled workforce from England, Germany, the United States and other places. This is not peculiar to my riding. There are similar stories all across Canada in all the new industries.

The reform we are talking about today is to empower Canadians to keep pace in this new world in which sadly there is no longer a place for school dropouts or people without suitable training. If we compare our rate of school performance with that of Germany, Japan, or Korea, of all the emerging countries where skills are at a premium and are being used day by day, we find ourselves sadly lacking.

That is why this reform is so important to us today. This reform is almost a call to Canadians to take up the challenge, to find in the reform an opportunity to reshape our collective skills so as to enable our citizens, especially our younger ones, to find a place in this very different yet very exciting world.

Today Canada will depend more and more on new technologies and new sectors, including communications, aerospace, broadcasting technologies, health technologies and indeed, the environmental technology sector.

These are our new industries, our new challenges. Tomorrow's opportunities await. And this is the attitude the Minister of Human Resources Development would like to see us adopt, one of taking responsibility for our actions, of discussing tomorrow's challenges together, so that we can build a social security system that will carry us into the 21st century.

In reviewing the options for the Axworthy reform, we have the opportunity to think about what is at stake, to face today's realities, to reflect on our 50-year old social security net, and to give Canadians, our young people in particular, confidence and dignity, in the knowledge that tomorrow's families will have lasting jobs, jobs that will make them competitive in today's competitive world.

This is what this reform is all about. The reform will most certainly have a financial impact. We can no longer afford our existing overly expensive social security net. We must think of more creative, more innovative approaches: this is the goal the minister, Mr. Axworthy, is trying to reach in his reform.

I hope this will give us all a chance to discuss in a constructive spirit this essential need to reform our social security system so as to make us competitive and give us the qualify of life for the next century we all aspire to have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would like to remind hon. members once again that we do not use the names of members of Parliament. We use their titles.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is quite a surprising speech on the part of the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, given the fact that he was a Minister in the Quebec National Assembly. I say a surprising speech because he confirms, he finally recognizes the failure of the federal government in the area of manpower training. He says there are jobs by the hundreds of thousands in Quebec that cannot be filled because there is a shortage of skilled workers in specific areas.

However, the discussion paper we have here offers no solutions to that shortage. If there is one topic on which all Quebecers agree, it is no doubt manpower training. Quebec must have jurisdiction in that area. The power to legislate on manpower training must be given to the Quebec National Assembly. Nothing in the government's handling of this issue, nothing in this document gives any indication that that is likely to happen. On the contrary, this project emphasizes centralization in Ottawa and confirms the refusal to hand control over to Quebec. This afternoon, while answering a question, the Minister said that Ottawa was the boss on that issue and that things would remain so.

Another thing. They say there are not enough skilled workers but this reform increases tuition fees. Is this the way to go if you are going to encourage people to get specialized training? Will people be able to afford an education after this reform? No.

The member's speech is astonishing and I would like him to explain where, in this document, in this reform, we can find evidence of a willingness to decentralize?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I must say, before you answer, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, that it is not customary to wave documents about in this House.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we should do is make a recording of the Bloc members' speeches and just play it over and over. This way, there would be no need for Bloc members to rise in the House after a speech. We could switch on the recording. It is always the same old story: centralization and the federal government are the root of all evil. Of course Quebec has no responsibility at all for what happens. It is all the federal government's fault. They make it sound as if once Quebec is independent, all their problems will disappear like magic and people will be trained for the jobs they will get in all those specialized plants.

The social security reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development is an attempt to ensure that many more people have access to the education system, training, student loans and a one-stop system for manpower training. The minister has said many times that he is open to any kind of reform that provides for complementary input by the federal government and the provincial government. Tabling this reform paper as a set of proposals for consultation is a way to involve people from all provinces, people across Canada, in a constructive reform process.

For instance, in my own riding, I intend to conduct public consultations on this proposal. I hope my Bloc colleagues will do the same in their ridings and work on ways, not just to break up Canada and separate Quebec from Canada, but to ensure that people find their place in a community where there is work for all. Anything but this endless refrain that centralization and federalism are the root of all evil.

Nobody is talking about centralization. We are talking about co-operative and constructive federalism, that will enable people to find jobs. That is what they are looking for, not your same old stories. You are all the same. It is always the same old story. The words never change. You will never be satisfied. How can you support a reform of the federal system if you want to break up the federal system?

This is the reason for all your problems. It is the idea you have that if you erect walls around you, it will be heaven on earth. But this is not the way. Nowadays, in our competitive world, we have to live together. Even Europeans are uniting to work co-operatively.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

In Quebec, we-

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Sir, I did not interrupt when you had the floor. You could at least extend the same courtesy to me. Your are always harping on-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would ask that the hon. member speak through the Chair. However, his time is up. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rosemont.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, tonight, I am convinced that the constituents of Rosemont are sure to have made the good choice when they decided not to put their confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada.

In October 1993, this party formed the new majority government after an election campaign based entirely on the theme of job creation. One year later, the Minister of Human Resources Development finally tables a discussion paper which was supposed to unveil a major aspect of this job creation program. It is not yet an action plan, only a working paper for consultation purposes.

In one year, this government managed to come up with two documents: a budget announcing cuts tabled in February 1994 by the Minister of Finance and, yesterday, a discussion paper on social program reform, which is also a document announcing cuts instead of a proposal for job creation.

At this rate, this government will have produced seven or eight papers during its mandate and will have only succeeded in creating a few jobs for writers and for public consultation facilitators. I am hardly exaggerating. Of course, the government made a few decisions. What kind of decisions, you will ask? Essentially, contract cancellations and closures.

This government cancelled the helicopter contract, but we are still waiting for its defence conversion policy. This government cancelled the privatization of Pearson airport, but we are still waiting for its redevelopment plan for this airport. This government shut down Atlantic coast fisheries, but we are still waiting for an adequate compensation and retraining package for fishermen. This government closed down the military college in Saint-Jean, but we are still waiting for the economic redeployment plan for the region.

The Minister of Transport announced that the federal government was going to withdraw from local and regional airports and that local and regional communities will have to take over, otherwise they will be shut down. The National Transportation Agency is still allowing hundreds of kilometres of rail lines to be dismantled, but we are still waiting for the position of the Liberal government on the HST.

Is the document that was tabled yesterday any different? Not in the least. While we had been promised more jobs and more security, we are getting less security and no jobs. After promising education and training, this document is announcing cuts in post-secondary education, bigger student loans and higher tuition fees in colleges and universities.

Even if, by and large, the document is very vague, it contains two specific proposals. This first is this-imagine: all workers who use unemployment insurance three times in five years will be declared chronically unemployed and practically treated like welfare recipients. That is the new security proposed in the Liberal Party's document.

The second proposal is equally unacceptable. The federal government is proposing to cut its share of funding for universities and to use the money saved to encourage students to borrow more, while forcing colleges and universities to raise their tuition fees dramatically. That is the encouragement for training and education the Liberal government gives us.

But where are the concrete job creation measures that were promised throughout the election campaign? Incredible as it may seem, they are non-existent.

You can read the whole 89-page document. You can read it and reread it; there is no proposal for job creation. How do you explain such an about-face by a political party whose only election slogan was job creation?

If one analyses the document-listen, I can try to provide an explanation, which I think is in two parts. First, they are making a reform because they have to. It is glaringly obvious, how inefficient the federal government is. It is very clear that the action taken by the federal government in occupational training and job development is completely ineffective.

This paper explains how disastrous the federal government's performance has been in terms of vocational training. And listen to this, it says that the federal government's involvement in that area will actually increase. Instead of withdrawing, as requested by all Quebec stakeholders, from vocational training, an area in which it admits having had disastrous results, the federal government comes out and tells us it will cut funding, but continue to impose its views not only on vocational training but also on education in the future. That is completely absurd.

In the face of the failure of existing programs, there is no doubt that reform is required. But the federal government, which is responsible for this failure, decided on its own authority that it will be in charge of the programs in the future. This is as if, one morning, the last in the class decided to impose upon everyone else his or her own training and education programs. You think that is impossible? No, it is perfectly possible. This kind of thing is possible in Canada because Canada is a sovereign state and the Constitution of Canada is interpreted by the Supreme Court, a court that always sways towards the views of the federal government. That is what sovereignty means in the Canadian context.

The federal government can make all the mistakes in the world for decades and the Constitution gives it the right and the power to keep at it in the future. Fortunately, as far as our future is concerned in Quebec, we will soon have the choice of pulling away from the sovereignty of the federal government with respect to decisions that concern us and to affirm the sovereignty of Quebec, so that we can handle our own affairs ourselves.

This decision is urgently needed and you will understand better when you read the second part of the explanation given in this paper. As the old saying goes, it never rains but it pours. The second explanation is just as dramatic.

Behind the grand-sounding headings of unemployment insurance and employment development, you will find on page 23 of this paper most of the second part of the explanation, which relates to Canada's public finances.

After cutting $2.4 billion from unemployment insurance this year, the government confirms that spending on social assistance and post-secondary education in 1996-97 must be reduced to 1993-94 levels and can be no higher in the following years. Expenditures will never be allowed to exceed 1993-94 levels.

Worse yet, the paper confirms that other cuts will be included in the next budget. All those who are familiar with public finance management know that the federal government's budget measures are similar to those imposed by the International Monetary Fund on countries that will soon no longer be able to pay off their debts. To get out of the financial abyss it threw itself into, the federal government is trying to pass the buck to the provinces and to individual Canadians while continuing to impose its own programs and priorities.

The Bloc Quebecois is aware of the disastrous state of federal public finances. That is why, since we were elected to the House, we have been calling for a full, open and public review of all federal government spending. We are demanding a full, open and public review of the federal government's role so that responsibilities and taxes can go to the level of government that can do the best and most efficient job. We are ready to act now. We are ready for a comprehensive overhaul of a federal system that is driving us straight into bankruptcy.

After a year in office, the federal government has given us contract cancellations, closures, cutbacks and discussion papers.

In the weeks to come, Quebecers will be able to compare the federal government's inactivity with the aggressive job creation measures already being taken by Mr. Parizeau's government. I am convinced that the vast majority of them will realize that sovereignty means being served by a government which can get us out of the hole in which the federal government put us, before it is too late. I am convinced that Quebecers-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, but your time is up. On comments, the hon. member for Lévis.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the experience of my colleague comes through his comments and the way he resumed the whole situation. He ran out of time a little bit

towards the end. So, I would like him to elaborate on what he was saying at the end of his speech, but first I would like him to comment on the level of responsiveness shown by the Liberal government. He has more experience as a member of this House than I have. To his knowledge, have Reform members ever been forced before to fill in the seats of Liberal members?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. Members do not refer in this House to empty seats left by any party. I would ask the hon. member to answer only to the first question put to him.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that rules must be followed, but I also understand that considering what is happening here tonight, sovereignty would be a lot easier for Quebecers to support, since this document that was tabled mentions jobs and growth in its title only. There is nothing in all its 102 pages on job creation and as for the rest, I think my colleague have already described it.

It is clear that we in Quebec will soon take charge of our future and say yes to our sovereignty. And the Reform members now present in this House-if we cannot talk about the members who are not here, we can at least talk about those who are in the House. I know that Canada is-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am clearly under the impression that a certain member is making fun of the Speaker and I do not like it. I said we can never refer to absent members. Members of all parties have to be away sometimes. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Laval-Centre.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that in unveiling the draft of his reform of social programs, the Minister of "Curtailment of Human Resources" created social insecurity in today's Canada and tomorrow's Quebec.

That insecurity hits the unemployed, students, young people looking for jobs, low-income families, single-parent families, in short, all the have-nots in society. When you know what this far-reaching reform proposal is all about, there is no doubt that its first objective can be summarized in one word: cuts.

Furthermore, it is clear that the first victims of these cuts will be the people in our society who are least able to bear them. In an effort to save the Canadian boat from sinking, the Liberal government will throw the poor, the disadvantaged and the unemployed over board. Among the poor in our society, women and children will undoubtedly be the designated victims of this big cleanup.

This government, which loudly professes its firm commitment to help children, is very careful not to recognize the paradox inherent to the present review of the social security program. Child poverty cannot be isolated from poverty of Canadian and Quebec families. In its 1993 report, the Canadian Action Committee on the Status of Women showed that 62 per cent of one-parent families headed by a woman were living under the poverty level.

For those families, more than any other family, poverty is a day to day reality. If we want to get rid of the spectre of poverty, it is the economic status of women that we must resolve.

In that context how can this government justify cutting $7.5 billion in social security without making his credo of the necessary cost effectiveness of the Canadian social security system? The opposition between the statements and the intentions of the Liberal government are blatant.

The following example proves it. One of the goals of the reform is to increase the economic security of Canadians. In the documents tabled by the minister, the government recognizes that the best way to tackle child poverty is to guarantee jobs to parents. Yet, there is not even an iota about job creation in the document.

Mrs. Françoise David, president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec said: "Is it not cynical on the part of that government to pretend that it wants to eliminate child poverty while saying absolutely nothing about job creation for parents?" Empty words and vague propositions is how the government sweetens the pill for the citizens of this country. A few examples will suffice.

The report contains a plan to increase child tax benefits for low-income families. The plan does not consider the impact of those changes on middle-class families who will probably bear the burden.

Mrs. Madeleine Bouvier, of the Fédération québécoise des familles à parent unique, denounces eloquently the shamelessness with which middle-class citizens, who are more and more crippled, are asked to help the government in assuming its responsibilities. Once more the government vision is out of focus: How can you pretend that you are helping children living in poverty when you weaken the social safety net? Clearly, neither Canada nor Quebec will fall for that.

The real agenda of the government is getting clearer by the day, suffice it to look at the reform proposals for unemployment insurance. I am referring in particular to the principle of family income to determine the right to UI payments.

If the spouse-understand husband-earns $50,000, his wife will not be eligible for unemployment insurance.

Gérald Larose, president of the CNTU, does not mince his words. To him, it is clear that this principle is directed towards women, since their salaries are lower than the salaries of men. How ironic that the only tax proposed in this reform project is directed towards women!

To the fund you shall contribute Though no benefit will you see For your husband still retains control Thanks Mr. Axworthy.

Not only is it frightening to see how this government is getting ready to destroy our social security system, but it is just as frightening to discover the tactics it has perfected to save our ailing federalism. Throughout this document, the Liberal government's intentions are clear: it wants to get into areas under provincial jurisdiction. And all excuses are valid. Child care is a good example.

While the minister recognizes the responsibility of provincial governments with regard to the definition and management of child care services, he explains in the same breath his clever participation in this area: to give funding, of course, as long as this funding is tied to national standards. I know that Quebec will not be fooled by such a deal, and I am convinced that the provinces will certainly not be taken in so easily.

Here is another example of federal incursions into provincial areas of jurisdiction, and I mean post-secondary education. The tidy $2.6 billion cut into transfer payments in that area will have an enormous impact, as much on students as on colleges and universities.

The provinces will have no choice but to increase their deficits or accept the erosion of their education systems. For universities, there will only be one solution: to increase tuition fees. Quebec university student associations are against these reforms, because they fear that tuition fees might increase to some $8,000 a year.

The federal solution in this case is simple: you have only to make more loans available for students. Here again, the solution is unacceptable, and the government knows full well that imposing the debt burden on our young people is untenable. Such an option will discourage many of them from attending university. How can we explain that, on the one hand, we praise the merits of learning while, on the other, we do not hesitate to charge prohibitive fees for access to education?

This leads me to make a few comments on another element of reform. I want to talk about the government's intention to promote on the job training for UI recipients.

In its analysis, the government recognizes the need to reduce overlap between the two levels of government. That intent is part and parcel of the myths of federalism. We know that only sovereignty will allow Quebec to eliminate overlap and waste. Obviously the government of Canada does not share this outlook.

The reform's central theme is "Jobs and Growth". We thank the Liberals for having targeted the two big failures of our system. But job creation and economic growth are sadly missing from the paper published yesterday. A better title would have been "Cuts and Decline".

I wonder how, in this country, one is expected to find a job when there are none.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker and colleagues, it would appear we are coming to the end of a fairly long day. It has been interesting as this debate has unfolded because most of the comments of our colleagues from the Bloc have to do with the fact that: "There are some things that could be improved in this package but it could be improved a lot more if we did it. So why not let us do it and we will do it better than you anyway".

The Liberal platform is "This is really just a discussion paper. We have not really thought anything out but by the way it is going to be finished in about a month and this consultation that is going on across the land really means something. Yes, we are going to have a 1-800 number but we do not have it yet. By the way we are going to change the way the whole country works and we will let you know how we are going to do it as soon as we figure it out. We are going to study it some more and hopefully we will not have to make any decisions that could embarrass anybody".

By and large we are saying: "It is a few cautious steps in the right direction but if you are going to do it for heaven's sakes do it and get on with it. If we are going to repair our country, we cannot play at it any more. We really have to start getting serious about it and do it".

There is one thing all of us here as parliamentarians probably share regardless of the party we represent. That is genuinely if we did not care about our children and about making a better country and a country of opportunity for our children, we would not be here. We would not be here as members of the Reform Party, members of the Bloc or the Liberal Party. We would not be here. We are here for the children, the younger generation. Perhaps if we looked at it from that perspective we could see whether or not this is at least a step in the right direction.

First, we have an aging population in Canada. That is not news to anybody. In 1994 right now 12 per cent of Canadians are over 65 years of age. In 16 years over 25 per cent of Canadians will be over 65 years of age. Our median age is 34 and we are aging fairly rapidly. There will be fewer consumers in the market, fewer taxpayers, higher taxes, more pensions to pay and probably a diminishing amount of money to do it.

At the same time, we have increasing demands on poverty and children. Now we have to spend a whole lot more money on young people in order to equip them so that they can become productive in later years. That is right into post-secondary education.

I did not even finish high school and yet I was able to go along quite well and do fairly well. So did many people of my generation but the nature of work has changed dramatically.

As we all know work is now very much a cerebral thing. Work is determined by brainpower and not by brawn. We are going to have to make sure that we put a foundation together that allows us to invest more in students and more in education because that is the only way we as an economy are going to get a return on the investment.

We have heard a good deal here today about the travails of people born into poverty or into into two or three generations of welfare families. However we have not heard a lot about the success that comes from families.

Why is it that sometimes in a family with very modest means the children can grow up and do very well and be quite successful? Sometimes in families of more modest means or of means much more substantial, children do not do as well as kids who grew up in poverty.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wonder if the member realized that I had called for questions and comments and then called her riding.

Would the hon. member for Laval Centre care to comment? Then he can pick up on his time for debate.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I wish to react. I listened to my colleague, and he said, of course, that we argued that if we ran our own affairs, it would probably be easier for us to solve our economic problems.

I would like to remind my colleague that running a small house is always a lot easier that running a big one. We can see the problems more clearly and we have fewer constraints of all kinds.

I invite my colleague to reflect on that important factor in our big federal system and I am sure that if he has a small house, it is very well managed.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague. I was so keen to wrap this up and get home, I just lost myself. I am sure that hon. colleagues probably felt much the same. In any event, we were talking about these children.

Why is it that children from modest means sometimes do very well and children that have lots do very poorly? Some of that has to do with nurturing. All of it has to do with nurturing. If one is wondering what the difference is between perhaps kids who are doing better than kids who do not do so well, it has a lot to do with encouragement from family and friends. It has a lot to do with having a sense of self worth and a sense of confidence and optimism. It has a lot to do with the sense of opportunity.

Our kids grow up in an environment where we are saying to them that this is a land of opportunity. We are people of opportunity. Our opportunity and what we can do in our life is very largely determined by what we think we can do in our lives. We can if we think we can. These are all the kinds of things that we can only achieve if we can achieve it within an atmosphere that values initiative, that values reward, that values the kinds of things that built our country in the first place.

A lot of things go into making a family and making a better life for our children. We all recognize that there are single parent families. We know that it is far more difficult in a single family environment to raise children and give them the kind of nurturing necessary because usually when the parent arrives home he or she is so tired that the last thing in the world he or she can do is think of all this nurturing. We understand and know that.

Therefore, anything that can be done in this social reform that can be aimed at giving children a sense of security and opportunity and the parents a feeling that they are not doing it alone is going to reward us as a society tremendously.

We also need to make one other very important consideration, in my opinion, in order for this new Canada to work. When people work and make an effort in society they need to be rewarded.

I just got off the phone with my ex-wife who, as a single parent, has done a great job in raising our son. He is just about finished high school. She was saying to me: "Look, I just got a bill from the tax department. I have to come up with another $1,800 on top of everything else I am paying. I don't have it and it is driving me crazy. Every time I think I am starting to get out of the glue, the taxes go up".

How on earth can we, as a country, continue to spend so much and put such a tax burden on everybody at all income levels? Everybody is crushed by this tax burden. The tax burden is there because we have been spending beyond our means for years and years.

That is why it is so absolutely important that we get this under control. It is going to hurt. We know it is going to hurt but it absolutely must be done. If we have the wherewithal, if we have the courage and the fortitude, we should be able to make a much brighter future for the children who are going to be coming in the next generation. That is where our focus should be. If we do that as a Parliament we will be rewarded for it.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot resist such an invitation.

I listened carefully to the part of the hon. member's speech where he alluded to the fact that if we are all here in this House, it is particularly for our children, and it is very true for me. I will remind you of something which concerns me. My hon. colleague gave personal details, so I can do it too.

Last year, on November 15, when I took my oath in this House, I did it with my grand-daughter. It is quite clear that I sit as a member in this House because I have faith in young people and children and because I believe Quebec will give them the society they deserve.

If my colleagues discussed this reform proposal today, it is precisely because they have faith in young people, and feel a responsibility towards them.

I guess I am closing the debate or almost. This is amazing.