Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Security Programs

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

Madam Speaker, here it is finally, the famous social security reform we have been hearing about for such a long time. Since I am a member of the Human Resources Development Committee, I can tell you the birth was a laborious process because we started with a project for an action plan and ended up with a discussion paper and that is almost the opposite of what should normally happen.

At the outset, the social security reform was to be a job creation tool. There is no job creation proposal in the program tabled. It was to be a source of pride, an incentive for Quebecers to stay in Canada, but I think it will be more of an incentive to the contrary.

In fact, the reform project we have here does nothing but manage the inefficiencies of the existing system. It contains nothing that would lead to true job creation. To find some good points, we can say that there is an excellent illustration here of what is going wrong. We are told, for instance, that in 1968 the unemployment rate was at 5 per cent in Canada. In 1982, it was at 9.3 per cent. That was from the beginning of the Trudeau years to the period just before the arrival of Mr. Mulroney in office. In 1993, it was at 10.2 per cent. What kind of system has produced that? In what kind of country are we living to get results such as this?

In a graph that we find here, we are also told that there are 20 per cent more jobs for university graduates than a few years ago. For people with post-secondary diplomas, there are 6 per cent more jobs and for people without these diplomas, 20 per cent less jobs. If we would follow the normal logic of this, we would say that we will have to find ways to get jobs for those people without post-secondary diplomas.

But on the contrary, the government is going on a witch hunt, only it is the unemployed who are the prey. It has decided that there would possibly be two categories of unemployed now: the unemployed who are using unemployment insurance occasionally, by accident, and the others, the bad people, those who are using it three, four, five times in five years, in fact, the seasonal workers. Lester B. Pearson must be spinning in his grave when he sees what the Liberals have done, because this reform is simply a continuation of what the Conservatives would have done last year.

Yesterday, the previous minister responsible, Mr. Valcourt, was laughing his head off on television because he, at least, had said during the election campaign that he would do that, so he was defeated because people did not want that. Liberals won because they were saying that they would create jobs, but they are going back to the Conservative program. The message for Canadians will be that Liberals or Conservatives, it comes to the same thing and that next time, they will be out too. But that will be the task of the Canadians, because we will surely have chosen to get out of this boat which is sinking.

What I would like to say is that when people who are working in peat bogs in Saint-Ludger-de-Rivière-du-Loup or Rivière-Ouelle, when people who are working in the forests will see this, they will not feel disillusion, but anger and discontent. They will only feel like coming to tell us, and I hope they do so before the committee, that this is crazy. Whoever wrote this has not been outside of Ottawa for a long time.

As for the minister who approves this kind of paper, he probably has a department where so much is going on that it is easy for people to slip things past him from time to time. In any case, what we see on the Table has no connection with the economic situation in my part of Quebec or the Maritimes or regions that survive on seasonal employment, and the paper contains nothing that meets the needs of people in our part of the country.

How did we get into this situation? First of all, we have to say that Canada is a regular dinosaur. Its reaction time is slower than anything I have ever seen.

Last year in October 1993, we had a promise that reforms would be introduced as soon as possible. Now, we have a working paper. First it was proposals for reform, then a plan of action and now we have a working paper. I suppose the next version will be a draft prepared by the successor of the present minister.

Finally, the process broke down for the same reasons it will break down again. There was a refusal to confront structural problems. When we look at Canada, I think we have to be perfectly honest and say: The real problem is not that the federal government did not have the right ideas at the right time. The problem is that the whole architecture of the system has to be changed. If I were a federalist, I would say we have to decentralize to adapt solutions to local needs. I know it is practically impossible to change the system, so for us the answer would be to create another country next door with a more decent approach to the needs of its people.

The other point I wanted to raise was how we got into this situation. The answer is that we keep perpetuating major sources of duplication. In Quebec, we created the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre, an agency that was ready to take on the entire responsibility for manpower training. Today, however, this agency, which was ready and willing to go ahead, is just marking time because no agreement has been reached by the federal and provincial governments. Annually, $250 million is being wasted in the case of Quebec alone, because the federal government has refused to decentralize responsibility for manpower training.

Far too much time and energy is spent on consultation at the local level, because people who live in the regions have to get organized any way, whether we are talking about the people at the SQDM or Employment and Immigration. They will do what they can because they know the people in the community and they are able to work with them. However, the time spent on consultation is time they would otherwise have been able to invest in developing employment in their community. There is a lesson here, but there is nothing in the reform paper that addresses these issues.

The federal government therefore insists on playing a role in professional skills training. We have known for years that the federal government's involvement was pure duplication. For years we have had a consensus in Quebec. Employers, unions, political parties, everybody is on the same wavelength. You do not see such agreement very often, and we should capitalize on it. Even the federal government should have understood that. Yet, for whatever reason, we always avoid coming up with the real solution. The reason might be that the vision is too bureaucratic. It has been too long since a minister was really in control.

It is high time that cabinet shape up and say that it is really in charge. Maybe it could start by travelling throughout Canada to find out what people need and then translate that into orders to their deputies. Then they could tell them: "From now on, that is what you are going to do", instead of "Give me the report so that I can know what to answer during Question Period."

There is another reason why this reform is not satisfactory, and I will show it with an example. There really is a double standard in the government. Let us compare family trusts and the reform of social programs and unemployment insurance. For months, we have been trying to get information on family trusts, to find out how much money is involved. We are not even saying that family trusts are unacceptable, because we do not know. The government refuses to produce any information on the matter. We are unable to find out how much money is invested in those trusts and the government is not helping.

Conversely, for unemployment insurance, we get all possible information on the number of unemployed, on the percentage of those who have used UI three, four or five times during the last five years.

The government can keep close track of people who have a much smaller income. With the new reform, an individual who applies for UI benefits will be required to disclose the financial situation of his or her spouse to see if that person really needs UI.

We are faced with a situation in which people who make $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year will have to meet requirements that do not exist when it comes to family trusts worth tens of millions of dollars. According to a survey, the average family trust has assets amounting to $10 million. Would it not be possible to spend as much time going after family trusts as we are trying to fix unemployment insurance?

The government is turning unemployment insurance into a fiscal management tool when historically it has been a way to redistribute wealth and to allow people in different regions of the country to make a decent living. On the other hand, it permits family trusts to put billions of dollars in tax havens for 80 years.

Before, we had a 21-year rule, but in 1992, it was decided to add 60 years to it. Eighty years without paying any tax. Even if, in the end, you still have to pay that gives you a lot more time to plan your taxes than when every two weeks you have to fill out a card to see whether or not you have worked during these past two weeks. This is some kind of a double standard, and I believe that the government is largely to be blamed for it.

That brings me to a matter which, in my mind, is of the utmost importance in all that. I mean the independence issue. In Quebec, we are often asked what will happen if Quebec separates. This proposed reform of our social programs brings me to ask myself a much more pertinent question: what will happen if Canada keeps on going in this same direction?

What we are offered for the next few years is cuts in the unemployment insurance program, a witch hunt against unemployed workers, and a two-tier system. Some system! The government will keep track of each claimant with a smart card. The rate of benefit will depend on how often he will have applied. Employers' premiums will be calculated according to the unemployment rate in their industry or the rate of cyclical unemployment they generate.

Personally I am not interested in the kind of country this will produce. It will not eliminate waste. We will still have a very costly bureaucracy. Therefore, I believe that it is important for Quebecers, Canadians also, but mostly Quebecers, to look at this project in the context of their future.

Of course, if Quebec becomes a sovereign country, we will not find ourselves in paradise overnight. We will have to manage things, to decide how to allocate funds, but we will at least be in a system where we can control all the data and decide that the system-whether someone is unemployed and on welfare or a real unemployed worker who receives UI benefits-should be changed and managed from a single data base by a government with all the tools needed to deal with the problem.

At the present time, the UI part of the system is handled by the federal government while Quebec is responsible for part of welfare. The federal proposal even encourages the provinces to opt out of welfare by giving them "candy" so that they feel compelled to join the federal program. It is very clear, I think, that this is not the way of the future.

Only yesterday, three provinces with more than 60 per cent of Canada's population immediately said no to the proposed reform. I think that their position is justified in the light of their responsibility and desire to do the right thing in the future.

I think it is important for Quebecers to say that they do not want that kind of Canada and to realize the painful situation they are in because of the national debt, a large part of which is due to the country's structure and confirmed by the proposed social reform program.

I think that people want a different country that can and wants to be on the move. Canada seems stuck in a vision and a structure preventing us from evolving and getting anywhere.

As I said earlier, I feel like we are finally witnessing the end of the Canada that was put in place, amazingly enough, by the Liberal Party itself. Let us look back at the Pearson years, even at the first years of the Trudeau government when there was a desire to be fair to the people. The reform discussion paper that was tabled this week marks the first-class burial of this desire to redress the balance in the Canadian economy.

This proposed reform also includes significant setbacks, notably for women. The right to collect benefits will now be linked to spousal income, which takes us back a few years. We are going back to a situation where, for 20, 25 or 30 years, women fought to gain independence and pull the rug from under them in what I referred to earlier as unemployment management. Instead of developing a plan that would promote, through a constructive policy, job creation, all that is achieved through this reform is unemployment management.

To conclude, I will tell the minister this, as the opportunity arises for opinions to be voiced throughout Canada, although the government seems to have already made up its mind: I encourage individuals who are part of groups representing those members of our society who need assistance as well as employers and anyone who wants this country to function properly to come and tell this government what is not working in here.

Reports from the OECD and other international organizations on the unemployment situation often show that, in every country that has relied only on employability and done nothing else besides developing rules of employability, the funds required were never made available and, at the end of the day, it was a dead loss.

I suggest that the government must think things over to ensure that, if opportunities to increase employability are created, there will also be jobs available. Otherwise, this reform may produce nothing but more dissatisfaction.

To paraphrase Gilles Vigneault, let me warn the minister that by blustering like that, he is stirring up quite a storm.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I heard a Liberal member state that we should take our own destiny in our own hands. This involves a great many things, particularly for women. But what this green paper contains concerning women is plain awful.

Just today, I think my staff has received about 50 telephone calls from women in my riding who are worried. They are worried because they have fought for years to get recognized and carve a place for themselves in society.

Today, they are told: "From now on, when you apply for UI benefits, we will check your husband's income to determine how much you will get". That is disgusting!

For 20 to 25 years, women have fought, they have fought something fierce, to take their place in society. Today, with this legislation, we are telling them that they no longer have a place in this society. We are simply telling them: "From now on, you will be dependent upon your spouse's income". That is totally unacceptable.

I represent a riding the economy of which depends on the tourist industry to the tune of 90 per cent. Some of my constituents are seasonal workers. They work, 10, 11, perhaps 12 weeks, I do not know exactly. They will be penalized because, according to this green paper, they are usually unemployed. But that is not so; they are people who depend on tourism for a living.

You know what I would do with that reform? I would take it and just throw it in the garbage because I do not believe in it. I sincerely believe that we must cut where it really counts. Do not cut the women who have fought so hard, do not cut people who really depend on it. It is not their fault. They would like to work all year if it were possible, but it is impossible for them. These people really depend on seasonal work.

I think it is totally wrong to cut there. Cut the family trusts. Cut where the cuts should be made.

I was a businesswoman before being elected to Parliament and I tell you that I never refused to pay my taxes. When I made money, I never refused to give some to the government. But today, the government is going to take money from the less fortunate.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were in the period of questions and comments. This is not supposed to be a period for another speech. I was expecting the hon. member to put a question to her colleague or to make some short comments in accordance with the rule, but it certainly is not an opportunity to make another speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pillitteri)]

Does the member have a question?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

My question is coming. Is that it?

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

That is it.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Fine.

My question is for my dear colleague from the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup: I would like to have your opinion on how women are treated in this green paper and especially on the situation of people who have seasonal jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. First, she herself was a self-employed businesswoman before she was elected. When she talks about what women go through, I am sure that it is a true reflection of reality.

In this regard, as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, I will make an extra effort to have that problem considered. I also call on her to ask women's groups to come and present their views to us so that we can make the government move on this.

As for seasonal jobs, I would answer her with an image and draw her attention to a particular aspect. This reform goes back to the vocabulary on welfare reform used by the defeated Liberal government in Quebec. They talked about bad welfare recipients, people who did not want to work. Now we are hearing the same thing. Seasonal workers who use unemployment insurance regularly will be penalized. After an unemployed person has made three claims in five years, he will be told: "You have a bad mark on your file. The next time you apply, you will get less." So he is made to feel a little guilty for a situation that he is not at all responsible for.

There are industries in which there will always be seasonal employment. In some regions of the country, forestry, agriculture and tourism will always be seasonal activities. There will never be year-round work available. Moreover, workers in these industries are not necessarily prepared to train for jobs which do not exist in their region.

If a person works in a restaurant for 15 or 18 weeks during the summer, you can train him to become a technician, but if there are no jobs for technicians in his region, you are wasting money. This is the conclusion reached by the OECD in a study on unemployment. In all the countries where attempts were made to increase employability without a job creation policy, these efforts were futile. The government will have some time to reconsider, and I hope it will.

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

Mr. Speaker, my eyes really filled with tears listening to the lugubrious comments about seasonally employed workers. Does the hon. member believe that it is fair, right or even decent that low paid people who work the year round and faithfully pay into UIC are the ones who are paying to support extremely highly paid seasonal workers in certain industries?

For example, I think of fallers in the logging industry in British Columbia. It is not uncommon at all for them to pull $300 a day. They work for a few months and then go on pogey. It is the poor worker who is paying for that. A lot of these people are married. Their spouses work the year round so they have double income. That is not reflected in their benefits.

I wonder if he thinks this is fitting and proper. Even in his own province he will find diamond drillers, for example, in Abitibi who make $150 to $200 a day. They work seasonally, go on pogey and have a good time. It is the poor, hard working person flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and paying year round into the fund who is supporting these people.

I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is important not to go overboard. Some people may abuse the system, but problems will not be solved by imposing strict measures right across the country.

Some parts of the country have particular problems. It may be the case back home too. However, the government will not solve a specific problem by implementing a national solution which penalizes a number of workers. Such cases require a more individual approach to correct the situation. In its present form, the reform is based on the premise that seasonal workers do not want permanent jobs, and that is just not true.

In my riding, many people work in the tourism, agriculture or fishing industry, including eel fishing. These people want to work. There is a continuous flow of people coming to my office because they are looking for work, but jobs must be available. A reform like this one would give interesting results only if it included a real job creation strategy. But this is not the case.

Canada is losing ground in terms of productivity, having slipped from 4th place to 14th. We are now behind several small countries such as Denmark and Sweden, which have control over their whole economic development and which are not fighting a federal structure preventing them from performing and getting interesting results. These countries have managed to find solutions while also showing compassion for those who have special needs.

The discussion paper alludes to a guaranteed minimum income, but the idea is immediately rejected on the grounds that it would be too costly to implement. The fact that our population is scattered all over the country, that Quebecers and Canadians have settled throughout the country is a plus. We must ensure that the people can live where they chose to and are given the means to develop their economy. No witch hunt or unemployed hunt will solve our problems. We should rather hunt for jobs so that each and every Canadian can find a position in which he or she can grow and contribute to Canada's wealth.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, tonight we are debating the government's discussion paper on social security in Canada entitled "Jobs and Growth". I must say that I take the government at its word when it says this is a discussion paper. It is not a law or bill as I heard a few minutes ago from one of the Bloc Quebecois members. It is not the last word. It is not cast in stone. It is a discussion paper.

It covers such things as unemployment insurance, the Canada assistance plan, assistance to post-secondary education, training, child support and some other matters. However it does not cover our pension program, nor does it cover our medicare program which are being examined in other studies. Many of us are extremely interested in knowing what proposals will come out of those studies.

This discussion paper has certainly identified some serious problems and I congratulate the government for doing that. It has identified the very serious problem of child poverty. It has identified the problems of disincentives for work in many of our welfare programs, and other things.

It has also emphasized some excellent goals. For example there is the goal of lifelong training, the need to continually upgrade our training and our ability to compete in the modern world. There is the goal of a national day care program to permit many women to go to work and earn their living.

All that having been said, I have some serious concerns about some of the proposals in this discussion paper. First of all, with respect to unemployment insurance, if I understand it correctly the paper proposes a 10 per cent cut in unemployment insurance benefits amounting to about $1.7 billion. This is on top of the cuts of about $2.4 billion that were made in the government's budget in the spring.

The government says in this discussion paper that these cuts in unemployment insurance benefits will be used for training. Well, let me point out that historically in this country the unemployment insurance fund was never used for training. It was used to provide support for persons who were unemployed against their will. It helped them to buy the food that was necessary for their family, to pay the rent and to pay the necessary expenses while they were unemployed. It was only under the Tory government of Brian Mulroney that moneys were taken in large amounts out of the unemployment insurance fund to pay for training. Historically that fund was never meant for training and it was not used for training for years and years.

Also, I have a concern that in taking so much money out of the unemployment insurance fund and reducing benefits we are going to leave short those people who are already fully trained. There are many unemployed people who are fully trained. What they need to help them are jobs. They do not need more training. What they need is enough money to keep them and their families going until the next job comes along, until the economy improves.

I am also concerned about the unemployment insurance proposals because of what they might do to seasonal employees. I listened to a member of the Reform Party who suggested that seasonal employees prefer to go on what he calls the pogey. Very few workers prefer to go on the pogey. As a matter of fact as a result of amendments made to the act under the Conservatives if you leave employment you totally lose your unemployment insurance benefits.

I am familiar with the construction industry. The people in Canada's construction industry have a tough time during the winter. They would prefer to work the whole year long, but it is difficult to do that in many parts of Canada because of our climate. They do not prefer to go on unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is a definite reduction in income for them but it is all they have in the winter, even though their wages are good when they are working.

The other thing they must keep in mind is that Canada is a country with many one industry towns. There are people living in towns that for example are almost completely mining towns, such as Sudbury, Ontario. For people who are fully trained and excellent workers in the mining industry when the world market for a metal goes down and all those people are put out of work, it is not a question of retraining. It is a question of making sure those workers have enough money to see them through until the market price for copper, nickel, or whatever goes up again.

I can remember a few years ago when the market prices for copper plunged. Thousands of workers were put out of work in Sudbury. These were fully trained, highly skilled mining workers but thank god for the unemployment insurance system because it saw them through until the market prices for those metals went up again.

There are many one industry towns in Canada, whether they are lumber towns, mining towns, railroad towns and so on.

Finally, I have to ask whether any government now has the right to tamper with the unemployment insurance program. The Mulroney Tories withdrew the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund which was about $4 billion. Before Mulroney did that the unemployment insurance fund was made up of contributions from workers, employers and the government out of general revenue, especially when the rate of unemployment went above 6 per cent. Mulroney stopped that and we criticized Mulroney severely for doing that.

Now many workers and unions say if it is only workers and employers who are contributing to the fund, they should control the fund as is done in Germany. In Germany a corporation is made up of representatives from the unions and the employers which controls the unemployment insurance fund, sets the benefits, sets the rates of contribution and so on. I have concern about that.

I am fully in support of the goal in the paper that we need much more training. Of course we need much more training but not as we said in previous years out of the unemployment insurance fund. Training benefits the whole society. It should be paid for out of general revenue and not by the contributions of workers and employers who are contributing to a fund that is to see them through when they are unfortunately put out of work. Therefore I have concern about that particular provision.

I also have concern about this concept that jobs are the answer to the poverty and the social security problem in Canada. There are many working poor in Canada. For many young people a job alone is not the answer. We must look at what kind of jobs people are getting these days. There are a growing number of people, especially women, working in service type jobs. They get minimum wage, it is temporary or part time work, no union, no benefits. They cannot start a family. It is almost impossible for a young person to get ahead in those kinds of jobs.

Somebody mentioned McDonald's. Unfortunately there are too many people working in McDonald's type jobs. I like a big mac from time to time myself but that is not the type of employment which is going to enable people to get married, start a family and buy a home.

I am also concerned with the provisions in the paper with respect to universities. Under the present program the government gives money to the provinces to assist with post-secondary education. We know that money is committed-there have been some problems with some provinces-but it is committed to the universities. The universities to a certain extent have some guarantee of funding with that money.

Under this proposal we terminate that type of funding. We give more money to students so that they will have more money, it is said, to pay tuition at whatever university they please. With this proposal we will find that universities are left in a doubtful position. They have guarantees of funding now. They will not have guarantees. There will be very serious risks. Students may decide not to go to university. They may decide not to get those loans. They should, but they may not.

We in Canada need world class universities. In my city of Montreal I would say we have four world class universities: McGill, Université de Montréal, Concordia, Université du Québec à Montréal. With this kind of proposal I do not know what will happen to those types of what I call world class universities, when they are not assured of that type of funding.

In conclusion, I have to say I do not know to what extent this reform package is being driven by demands of the Department of Finance and the problems of the deficit. All I can say is that we said in the election campaign that we would deal with the deficit by economic growth and jobs, not by cuts. Consequently, I am a bit concerned by what I read in this paper.

I am also concerned by the suggestion that there is not enough money for these types of social programs. I believe we should cut out waste wherever waste is present, but on the other hand I see too many instances in our society where there is waste in consumption. We are closing hospitals. At the same time there is an unbridled pressure to buy more and more consumer goods which are not essential.

Madam Speaker, I see you signalling my time is up. Let me say this: There are some good proposals in this document, but there are some that give me grave concern. I will reserve judgment on those. I will see how the discussion goes in the country. I encourage Canadians to participate in the discussion, but I hope these proposals are not the last word, that they are not written in stone.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and I must say that he was true to himself. This government member has shown some independence of mind, by voicing his own concerns. It is interesting to hear such statements in this House.

He began by addressing the issue of unemployment and decrying the practices and orientations of the previous Conservative government, under Mr. Mulroney, and I want to indicate to him that I have come to the same conclusion after reading the discussion paper, and that is that the unemployment insurance fund should still be used to support training.

Then, the hon. member mentioned his concerns regarding the universities, and I agree with him. I took note of these two points he raised. As far as the unemployment insurance situation, for which he blames the Conservatives, and the universities are concerned, if the hon. member has read the same document I did yesterday or today, he must have come to the same conclusion I reached. I think that the universities are very concerned about the increase of students indebtedness, the rise in tuition fees and the reduction of transfers to the provinces and that these issues concern the hon. member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, so I would appreciate his comments on this.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, this paper identifies some real problems with our social security system. I congratulate the government for putting those problems before us and offering some alternative solutions.

I also said it emphasized some goals which I approve of. I approve of the goal of eliminating child poverty. I approve of the goal of eliminating the disincentives from the welfare system. On the other hand I said I had serious concerns about some of the alternative proposals for unemployment insurance and for assistance to the universities.

I speak with respect to unemployment insurance because I was the critic in opposition for five years on questions of unemployment insurance and employment. For five years I was the critic for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I criticized both Flora MacDonald and Bernard Valcourt when they brought in bills which did some of these things.

Our government is putting forward this discussion paper in an attempt to get some discussion started on how to deal with the problems in the system. I do not deny there are problems in the system. The discussion paper has overlooked the fact that we have many one-industry towns in Canada, that we have many seasonal workers, that we have many workers who are fully trained. They do not need training when they are unemployed, they need enough money to help them and their families.

I am being consistent with the position I have taken for years and years, especially with respect to the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney who made some very terrible changes in the unemployment insurance system. I hope we do not do this. I hope some of these things are not written in stone, that they are not the last word. That is what a discussion paper is supposed to be.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate a bit on a couple of aspects of the unemployment insurance program.

Does my hon. colleague feel that unemployment insurance is actually unemployment insurance, and whether the premiums paid by both employee and employer should be commensurate with risk so that it is in fact unemployment insurance. The other question is this. What about the person earning $50,000 and working six months versus a person earning $16,000 a year who works day in and day out-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry. The hon. member has scarcely one minute.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, in answer to the question yes, it should be a real insurance program. I refer to the program in Germany where the Germans have a quasi-public corporation made up of employers and employee representatives. They decide what the rate of premium should be and what the rate of benefits should be. It is strictly an unemployment insurance program and has been proposed by some of the unions in Canada.

With respect to those who have high wages and those who have lower wages, the member knows that even under the present system there are caps on what the high wage earner will contribute and there are caps on what they will receive.

What the $50,000 a year man might receive in unemployment insurance benefits is nowhere near his $50,000 income. We have four categories of contributions and four categories of benefits. They are subject to fairly low limits when one considers the plight they face today.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak tonight on social security reform.

May I add that I am also proud to serve a Prime Minister who has had the wisdom and courage to deal with an issue that will lead Canadians into the 21st century. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources Development whose hard work, perseverance and leadership have resulted in an initiative whose fruition will be absolutely essential to the well-being of Canadians.

Our reform of social security is not being done in isolation. It is one of four components of the government's job and growth agenda, which also includes ensuring a healthy fiscal climate, reviewing government programs and priorities and strengthening the performance of the Canadian economy, in investment, innovation and trade.

As a government we intend to pursue all four pillars aggressively. It is important that we understand what the social security reform process is all about. It is not simply about cutting government expenditures, although this is important, and fiscal considerations cannot be ignored in all of our deliberations.

It is also not simply an exercise in being more efficient although the elimination of duplication, the reduction of overhead and the co-ordination between the various levels of government are also important.

It is not simply about creating a quick fix for an ailing system. We are not prepared to simply tinker with the system so that it can stagger forward for another three or four years. The time for basic reform is upon us and we are prepared to meet and take up the challenge.

What this process is really all about are jobs and security. It is about helping Canadians in whatever socioeconomic position to be gainfully employed and to provide their families with a life of security within a system that we and future generations can afford to maintain. Our social security reform process will address three major issues which are critical to ensuring that Canadians can provide the best form of security for themselves and their families, a job with a fair wage.

In this respect the discussion paper which the minister tabled yesterday deals with three areas which must be addressed if we are to assist Canadians in achieving job security: First, ensuring that our young people receive the necessary education to compete in the job environment of the 21st century. Second, to ensure that Canadians who are suffering from structural unemployment are given the necessary training and other tools to re-enter and maintain long term employment in the workforce. Third, to ensure that the disincentives built into the income security system are eliminated and that individuals are encouraged to work rather than be given an incentive to stay at home.

It is true that no one can promise that an education will guarantee anyone a job. What we can guarantee, almost without exception, is that without an education a person will have less of a chance to obtain a job. To demonstrate this we merely need to look at the statistics.

In the last three years job growth for university graduates has increased 17 per cent. There has been no growth of jobs for high school graduates. Most telling, there has been a 19 per cent reduction in jobs for people who did not complete high school.

The discussions of how best to fund post-secondary education to make sure that it is accessible to all Canadians and how to make sure that is relevant and meaningful are important objectives of this reform and forms an integral part of our agenda for jobs.

We must provide Canadians who become unemployed the necessary tools to rejoin the workforce. Forty years ago when the unemployment insurance program came into being, most unemployment was of a short term nature, usually caused by a cyclical decrease in consumer demand which was restored as the business cycle revolved. After periods of time which were measured in months rather than years, individuals would be recalled to their place of employment.

Unfortunately this is no longer the case in many instances. There exists in Canada today a significant amount of structural unemployment. People who are losing their jobs are doing so not because of cyclical decline in demand but rather because the jobs have disappeared permanently. We need to face up to this reality and understand that not only do workers need to be provided with income support, and they do, but also with tools so they can adapt themselves to new jobs which are being created.

These tools include better access into the support system; provision of basic literacy and numeracy skills; training to assist adaptation to new technology; on the job work experience to allow employees to be more effective and incentives for hiring unemployed workers. In this area we must ensure the responsibility is shared by giving responsibility to communities, local businesses, labour and educational groups so that they, who best understand the needs of their local community, can drive the process.

We must work at removing the disincentives for people who are receiving income support from returning to the workforce. The provinces must be given greater flexibility so they can meet the needs and priorities in their regions. Child care needs to be provided so that single mothers can return to the workforce. Individuals must have the opportunity to obtain entry level jobs with a gradual reduction in benefits and move away from the all or nothing scenarios which presently exist.

We must end the cycle of child poverty so prevalent in single parent families. We need to ensure that the federal child tax benefit is made stronger and target it to where it is needed most. As I said earlier, we need to work with the provinces to ensure better child care and child development. We must work hard to ensure that child poverty is not the result of irresponsible, non-custodial parents who refuse to pay court ordered child support.

The discussion paper tabled yesterday is not the final word. The final word belongs to the Canadian people. Not only is the government committed to receiving input from people across Canada, but I am personally committed to hearing the concerns and ideas the residents of my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka have to provide.

On November 7 and 8 I will host a forum at the Rosseau Community Centre to hear what my constituents have to say. Their views, their letters and their presentations will come back to Ottawa with me to be presented to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The particular concerns generated by a seasonal tourism economy, the challenges of operating in rural Ontario will be brought forward to the government and will be considered.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this meaningful process. I am committed, along with my colleagues, to ensuring that Canadians have the best social security system, a stable job with a fair wage.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the fact that, in his speech, the hon. member acknowledged that one of the goals of this social program reform is spending cuts. The hon. member said that this was not the only purpose of the reform, but one of its goals. This only goes to confirm an article published in the Toronto Star , not known for its animosity towards the Liberals. So, what they mention must be a minimum figure. Some people say that the federal government secretly plans to cut $7.5 billion in social programs in the next five years. This means that major cuts are really part of this reform.

My question concerns rather another aspect of my colleague's Speech. He said we must avoid overlapping. On page 76 of the reform proposal, we are told all in the same page about federal intervention in three different sectors: daycare, education and welfare-which are all provincial jurisdictions. How can the government reduce overlapping by increasing its interventions in provincial jurisdictions?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me comment on the two points that my hon. colleague made.

This review is going to be needed in any event because our social policy programming needs to be updated. But if he thinks that we are going to undertake a review without trying to find cost efficiencies, without trying to deliver our programs in a more efficient way, without trying to get better value for each dollar that we spend, then he is totally wrong.

From my discussions with the Canadian people, from the discussions with the people in my riding, from the telephone calls and the mail I receive, Canadians have said two things. They want a social security system that they can depend on, that is going to last because it is going to be affordable for us and for the future generation and that this social policy review must deal with both of those issues.

As to dealing with specific areas of jurisdiction, I have listened today, yesterday and the day before to the Bloc Quebecois say over and over again that their major concern about the social policy paper is not that Canadians or Quebecers have more opportunity for employment. They have not told us about how they think this social policy review can improve social programs or their suggestions. What they have told us is that their primary worry is jurisdiction.

I suspect that the individual in Quebec, just as is the individual in Ontario, is not so much concerned about where their cheque is coming from. They are concerned that there is a social security safety net to protect them. They are not so much concerned whether we have constitutional t's crossed and i's dotted. They are concerned that we have efficient government and a social program that can be delivered in a cost efficient manner that will be there for themselves and for their children.

If the Bloc Quebecois wants to continue on and on to put this in the terms of a jurisdictional question, I think that your electorate in Quebec will say what this is about is to ensure that we have a social safety net; what this is about is to ensure that we have an opportunity to re-enter the job market; what this is about is to give Canadians the best social program, a secure job with a decent wage. That is what Canadians want.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally have an opportunity to speak to the social programs review. I have waited with great anticipation for this day since January 18 when His Excellency, the Governor General, in the speech from the throne announced that the government would initiate an action plan for major reform of the social programs in Canada. Two weeks later, on January 31, the Minister of Human Resources Development asked all members of this House to work with the government to develop an action plan for renewal of our social safety net.

After all that we expected an action plan. Nine months of gestation and the elephant has given birth to a mouse. Now that we are here we have no action plan but a discussion paper full of maybes.

The minister says he will consult with Canadians. In phase one the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development held consultations with interest groups, private citizens in person and through the media of teleconferencing. Now the committee is scheduled to embark on five weeks of face to face consultation.

I had hoped that this would give us an opportunity to hear from Canadians who do not represent the special interest groups and whose inherent bias and sole mandate is to perpetuate their own existence. The Government of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, is paying $4 million in intervener funding to interest groups to prepare their presentations and no doubt we will hear from some of the same interest groups that we subsidized to testify in phase one.

The government has made it virtually impossible for ordinary Canadians to prepare submissions because the deadline is November 7. The real information, the technical papers, will not even be available until late in October. Perhaps the minister thinks that this is some kind of a Hallowe'en treat or maybe a trick.

After many delays and much fanfare and many leaks, we are left with a watered down series of questions that offers little direction and no plan of action at all. It has been said that the minister hopes to generate intelligent, informed discussion at every dinner table in the nation. The premise is right on. We are hoping that this reform would actually place all the social programs on the table for discussion. We felt certain that the minister would want to give Canadians an opportunity to examine and challenge the principles on which existing social programs are based so that informed discussions can take place and decisions can be made.

To facilitate this discussion did the minister even give Canadians the information they need to initiate informed discussion? I do not think so. Is he trying to fool the people? He thinks that perhaps if he fills them full of mumbo-jumbo, the type that we heard here today in Question Period from him, eventually people will leave the table and say "I've had enough, let government fix this mess". He does not want Canadians, it appears, to know the real truth about social programs.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, or something like that, but Canadians do not really know what their future holds and they want to know. They need to know so that they can plan for their future and their retirement years. After they have paid their taxes will they have any money left? Very likely they will not. They had better not count on the Canada pension plan or old age assistance to sustain them in their declining years because there will not be enough money to go around. Today every dollar that is paid into the Canada pension plan is paid out the other end to a current beneficiary.

Canadians want to know what their future holds and we believe they have every right to know. Forewarned is forearmed. The Reform party wants to ensure that Canadians are fully informed so that they can make conscientious decisions about their futures.

The Liberals set their target for deficit reduction at 3 per cent of GDP.

If it is really serious about making this a reality the government is left with few options: either a meaningful reduction in spending or an increase in taxes or a combination of the two. We do not have that information. It does not show up anywhere in this paper. We think that is one of the first question Canadians will want answered.

If young people want a payout from CPP the premiums that they are paying in will have to double, triple or perhaps quadruple before they reach retirement years. It will not take that long. By the year 2010, about the time the baby boomers are set to retire, government revenues will be totally consumed by interest on the debt and by social program spending.

We know government has other financial commitments that will have to be met as well. What will happen to the pension the baby boomers thought they could rely on in the so-called golden years? The gold in those years will be tarnished and there will not even be any coppers traded for the necessities of life. I believe that the best way to help Canadians and their families prepare for their future and to fight poverty is to reduce the tax burden.

In pre-World War II days when government entered into the foray of income support, I am sure that no one ever dreamed it would go this far into debt, this far into fostering a dependency on government to provide for our well-being. For too long people have believed that grants are gifts from the government. Actually everyone knows we have to pay the taxes in first.

This government and its predecessors have given with one hand while increasing taxation and taking with the other. Canadians want to know what this government's agenda is. Is it to protect those who cannot help themselves or is it income redistribution? In this country we punish people for being successful and we seem to reward those who are not.

Some will say that sounds pretty radical. Wait until you hear this quote: "We are not interested in paying able-bodied people merely because they were not able to find work. We propose social aid for those people who are unable to work because they are crippled, aged or mentally ill". Does that sound like a radical statement? This is a quote from Tommy T.C. Douglas, former CCF Premier of Saskatchewan, talking about social assistance programs in his province. From that time to now we have arrived at the place where we think we have to subsidize everybody.

Those who have tinkered with the expansion of our social programs over the last quarter century have lost track of the target. In trying to help everybody the government has incurred a massive debt that today has reached a whopping $533 billion. This amounts to $18,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. If we want to do anything about child poverty, I suggest we do something about that $18,000 tax bill.

Past enlightened governments have allowed this country to fall off the rails and now it is time to get it back on track. The role of government in providing help must be redefined. If we continue with the status quo we will not be able to help those who are truly in need. It is imperative that we reinstate the balance between public support and private responsibility. We have allowed people to become reliant on government and now the government is broke.

This document does not leave me with the impression that this government is looking beyond the next election. There are Canadians who truly need help. To ensure that they will be cared for the government must immediately eliminate handouts to corporations and interest groups and reform the members of Parliament pension plan.

After all, how can we expect Canadians to embrace social program reform if the government is not prepared to reform its own pension plan? The Reform Party MPs have opted out of the pension scheme but I notice that none of the other parties has followed our lead.

As I said earlier, the minister asked this House to work with the government to develop an action plan for the renewal of the safety net. From what we have seen of the green paper, this no action plan, he needs help.

I want to assure members that we will help wherever possible to bring about real social reforms. In that vein I will be glad to share with the members of the government what the Reform Party believes. We believe that social programs should be financially sustainable.

We believe that social programs should be targeted to those who are most in need. Social program delivery should be decentralized and the family should be strengthened as the primary caregiver in society.

The Reform Party is committed to real social program reform and we believe that if the government follows these principles, Canadians can have a plan for the future.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member's comments. I must admit that I do not exactly hear anything very positive. I heard it is not working, that it is not right and the lead in was basically that the government does not have a plan.

The government put out a plan, put out the framework for a plan before us. The concept is to go back and consult with one's constituents to get the input of Canadians in this process. It is very important.

I hear the Reform people saying why do we not do this tomorrow. The reality is that it has taken us 30 years to get here now. It is not going to get fixed tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully it can get fixed within a year.

The very important part of this is to get Canadians involved in the process. I am conducting a social policy review in my riding on October 23. I have used a householder and sent it out to 40,000 households in my riding to solicit all the possible support and views and different concepts. General Motors is on the panel, the CAW is on our panel. We have the chairman of Durham College chairing it for us.

That is the kind of consultant method that we are going to. I would like to ask the member what he is doing to bring this to the people to get their ideas.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, this idea of consultation I did say in my remarks is good. When we do consultation over and over again with the same groups of people, and we subsidize them with taxpayers' money to prepare their reports and to bring their remarks to our standing committee-we do this over and over again-when does consultation become excessive? How much consultation is enough consultation?

I submit that we have gone through the consultative process. Sometime we have to start making decisions. If this government is not prepared to make a decision in the first year or year and a half of its mandate, it will be facing an election in the second half of its mandate and then I suggest it will be even more hesitant to make decisions than it is today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am perplexed by what the member from the Reform Party has said. I have always thought that one of its major points as a party was that it wanted to listen to Canadians and to do it in a very consistent manner.

The fact that Canadians were consulted from January 31 to today is one phase of the consultation process. The hon. member knows that what we would like to get from Canadians is a reaction to the proposals for change in the green book as outlined by the Government of Canada.

I am wondering if during this consultation he will also present to his constituents the Reform Party position on cutting $15 billion from social programs and where exactly he will cut from.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that the Reform Party has not said that our plan is to cut $15 billion.

What we did say in a news conference is that the Liberal Party has campaigned on a promise to get its deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. Three per cent of GDP is in the neighbourhood of $25 billion. The deficit today is $40 billion and the media and perhaps even the minister did the arithmetic and came up with the stunning conclusion that somehow their target rates meant that the Reform Party was going to cut $15 billion out.

I have a pretty good imagination. I cannot imagine how they came up with that.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the discussion paper on social policy review.

I wish to take a slightly different approach than has been taken so far and concentrate on a particular section of the policy paper that has been presented. I would like to indicate how clearly that discussion paper misses the opportunity for leadership and new thinking for a new economy and for a redirected social policy program.

I recognize that the government has set for itself a major task of tremendous significance that will affect our financial, social and personal well-being in this country.

There is a desperate need to change our social policy. There is a recognition in this particular paper that our economy has become technology oriented and that it is critical for Canada to find a way to capitalize on the technology of tomorrow.

How can we all benefit from this recognition? By recognizing that the world is rapidly changing we have taken the first step in making the transition toward a productive future. But it is only a first step, a very, very tiny one. In real terms this means that the workforce in Canada must change. This too is included in the discussion paper.

Canada must develop a workforce that is well educated, capable and skilled and above all that is primed to participate and anticipate the changes that are coming with respect to the economy in general, their specific jobs and to prepare themselves for the transition that is about to come. A workforce that has those characteristics will indeed be successful in competition.

It requires lifelong learning. Learning I believe is at the basis of a dynamic economy. Only through education and ongoing training of a workforce can that force be equipped to meet market demands.

However, like all the other components in our economy education itself is under tremendous stress. It has become inefficient. It has become too expensive and it is failing the very people it was designed to serve. Canadians are lagging behind, no matter how well educated they are. They are not equipped to tackle the jobs of the market requirements.

Canadians are paying the price for post-secondary education that is out of date, a system that was designed primarily to serve the needs of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We are in the 1990s. Higher education must be reviewed and must change to reflect today's requirements. That means universities, colleges and technical institutes and other deliverers of educational services and courses. Every avenue of education must be taken to be part of the plan and must be utilized.

I pose this question to the House this evening. What should the federal government's role be in post-secondary education? In particular, how should post-secondary education be funded?

As an educator with 25 years experience and as a provincial politician and now as a federal politician I have witnessed the relationship between education and government in the post-secondary process and throughout Canada. It is from this point of view that I wish now to reflect upon one of the government's proposals.

The proposal is to expand student loans. Student loans are not a new idea in Canada. They have been used to finance education for many years. As a result many graduates have racked up substantial debts and upon graduation, despite the investment, many of them cannot get jobs. The jobs they had and were well paying and looked secure were not. Graduates are underemployed on a part time basis and often on a very short contract basis. Despite the investment in education through student loans there has been no guarantee of employment for graduates despite the fact they have been left with massive debts and no way to repay them.

The key is jobs. There is some suggestion that maybe the government should guarantee these loans. It does not help if the loans cannot be paid back and it adds to the cost of government.

How serious is this problem? One might say that is not that big a problem. In November 1992 the total default in education debts or loans if you will was $1 billion. That is the equivalent of 100,000 students defaulting on a $10,000 loan. That is a significant problem. Many students are not only deep in debt, they are without a job and have very little to show for that debt that they have incurred. Canada has very little to show for that debt. It is unacceptable and it must change.

We are looking for a legitimate role for the federal government in this kind of funding. Leading economists and Canada's leading authority on educational finance or finance of higher education, Dr. E. G. West of Carleton University in Ottawa, says that what we need is a voucher system not a heavier burden on the backs of our young people, a voucher system that would see the federal government distribute its higher education money to students themselves directly in the form of vouchers that would be accepted by universities, colleges and technical schools. These institutions in turn would convert those vouchers into money by redeeming them with the federal government. This voucher system is direct, single, simple, effective, flexible and deals with the individual-talk about decentralization-a legitimate approach for the funding of higher education at least in part.

What are the advantages of such a system? There are many. In the minds of my colleagues and those who are in authority, such an arrangement would encourage healthy competition among institutions to attract students. It would be a preferable arrangement for students too because an arrangement like this would enhance individual choice and make it an effective choice. Students would have more leverage to seek out institutions to meet their needs and the federal cost would be no higher than it is today.

The voucher system would work better for students. It would ensure a higher standard of post-secondary education through competition and would cost the government no more than it costs today.

The voucher system would do much more than that. It would put into the hands of the students consumer power. The students would decide what kind of program, who would deliver it and at what price. It would recognize the diversity of choice of those who seek to learn and those who provide the educational services. It would allow the post-secondary education institution to fine tune the system and like government itself, avoid the expensive duplication and overlap that exists at the present time.

Under this system students would benefit from institutions competing for enrolment between themselves and the students would feel strong and well about their particular decisions. Would they make good decisions? I have dealt with many of these students at the post-secondary level and the post-graduate level and they are very capable of making decisions. They know exactly what kind of program they want and need. If the universities would listen, if some of these services that are provided would listen to the needs and demands of the students and have the wherewithal to give them money needed for their education they would do so.

Students are not only the young. There is a much larger proportion of Canadians who are older adults in various age groups who need further education. These too could be served with this voucher system. It would create a large, political and powerful force at the federal level for higher education if we adopted this voucher system. That force would consist of students, their husbands, their wives, their parents and all those others who would benefit and participate in the decision-making for higher education.

Advanced education would then compete on a much more equal basis in terms of the power that they need so that government supplies those services that we actually have to have in our society.

Finally and most important, it could be expanded beyond simply education to include the training programs under UI and welfare instead of having the turf war that exists between the various departments.

I strongly urge the government to think very seriously not about expanding the loans to students but rather to institute a voucher system and give the student consumer power.