Debates of Oct. 7th, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

Motion To Extend Hours Of Sitting

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker I move the following motion. I believe you will find there is unanimous consent, after consultation with whips across the way. It is the following:

That, the hour of adjournment be extended a further 30 minutes and that during the said extension, notwithstanding any standing order, the Chair will not entertain any dilatory motions or quorum calls.

The reason this motion is put forward is to hopefully enable the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing to be able to make a speech that he wanted very much to be able to deliver to the House today. Hopefully the extension of hours by a further half hour will permit that with the usual allocation of time.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Social Security Programs

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Saint John has the floor. She has the right to reply to the question that was put from the other side of the House.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated that she felt we should not be playing politics, that we should all deal with the social reform policies in a very responsible way. I agree with her on that.

However I have to say that the starting point for social policy reform has to come from the provinces. If the Liberal government and the Minister of Human Resources Development do not have suggestions from the provinces, then in my opinion they do not have the solutions.

The federal and provincial governments need to rationalize the programs they have to make sure there is no overlap, and eliminate the duplication and overlap.

Also, the hon. member mentioned meeting with one's constituents and getting back. It is my intention to meet with my constituents. I hope the Minister of Human Resource Development will take the suggestions of the people of my constituency under consideration, a little better perhaps than the Minister of Transport did when it came to transportation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate on the discussion paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development entitled "Improving Social Security in Canada".

Over the course of this debate, a few basic themes keep returning over and over. One of the most important is that any government program reflects the realities of the time in which it was created. That is certainly true of the status quo of social programs.

They were designed at a time when most people needed relatively few skills to get and keep work. What they picked up in school and on the job was usually enough to build a lifetime of earnings. People needed financial help between jobs. Others needed support if they could work at all, due to disability or family commitments.

The old system was based on a stable world with stable skills and stable jobs for the vast majority of working people. Is there a person who believes that holds true now? Too many people have learned the hard way that the programs and services we have are designed more to keep people where they are than to help them to get where they could be.

We have a system that gives people barely enough money to live but not enough opportunity to thrive, a system that at times rewards those who can manipulate the rules better than those who simply want to make something of themselves.

People see that. People know there is an activity that fits the letter of the law while offending the spirit. For example, I have a letter from a man in Ontario who points out how larger employers use the UI system to encourage workers to take early retirement. It may not be literally against the rules but it is hardly consistent with UI as a source of income for people who are genuinely between jobs.

Another person wrote about watching an economy develop in a small B.C. town around the unemployment insurance. He sees young people learning from their parents that it is all right to leave school relatively unskilled, work for only enough weeks to qualify for benefits and then collect UI benefits for the rest of the year.

Is there a member who has not heard these concerns? What do we say to people who raise these issues? It happens too often to say simply: "It is just an isolated case". It shows us that the status quo no longer works well enough and is in real danger of losing the support of Canadians. It goes a long way to show why

78 per cent of Canadians believe our social programs are essential but 85 per cent believe they must be reformed.

The polls say it. Our mail says it. Canadians are not satisfied with the status quo. They know that a more effective and a more cost effective social safety net is not just possible, it is necessary.

The value of the discussion paper on social security reform is that it lays out facts, ideas and real choices. It is helping Canadians to translate their feelings and experiences into useful advice to their government about social programs.

Canadians want to work. They want their fellow citizens to work. But between those goals and the reality of creating jobs and getting people into them lie a series of challenges. Some lack basic information on the labour market. Others are illiterate. Some have jobs but get little training to improve their skills. Other people face the issue of the lack of high quality, affordable child care. People with disabilities can list the barriers they face each and every day. The challenge is to set priorities based on needs and the probability of results given the real fiscal constraints that exist.

One of the central ideas in the section of the discussion paper on working is the value of community involvement. In setting priorities the federal government fully recognizes there can never be enough money to meet every possible need. That is why the discussion paper suggests that some mechanism which allowed communities to set priorities and to act on them would be appropriate.

What might our unemployment programs look like in the wake of real reform to social security? To begin with we might see communities with a centre of social program delivery. Some mechanism that allowed people to come together to determine local labour market needs and priorities would be a start. Using the best and most up to date information on what works in training, they might invest in a mix of employer based training and wage subsidies for the long term unemployed and for young people, and other forms of training from many different sources.

A partnership between governments in that community might lead to the creation of one location for all unemployment and income support services. Picture a person looking for income support who could be referred for counselling and assistance in developing good job search skills. Picture the sole support mother getting help with child care, housing and literacy training in the same place.

The agreement between the federal government and the province of Ontario to set up local labour force development boards offers a sign of things to come. These governments have agreed to work together with communities across the province.

Local boards with people from unions, businesses, education and many other segments of society will have the ability to determine and set priorities for government labour market spending. They will decide what training is needed and what employment development should be emphasized. This will be a case of people who know the regions and who care about building a better future having control of the tools to help realize those visions.

This kind of co-operation could lead to governments and communities working together to break the vicious cycle of UI dependence. Efforts to give people real skills, create real jobs and enable a real economy to flourish could all come together.

The paper looks at the issue of how unemployment insurance could better help people find and keep jobs. We are asking Canadians if we need two approaches within our insurance system, one that would provide a straightforward insurance coverage and another aimed at people who face regular unemployment and may need more assistance. We are asking them if tightening the current program is a better option or whether we should take both approaches at the same time. We want to know how they would deal with the needs of part time workers, self-employed contract workers and other people who get no help now.

These are real choices. Canadians deserve the right to determine their own priorities. We believe and they agree that giving people the skills and incentives to work is appropriate. We want to go a step further to explore what makes sense with the money we have.

How to balance the social and economic priorities of Canadians is not a simple task. We recognize that to meet our social program goals and to meet our fiscal obligations to Canadians will require some hard choices. Our citizens are capable of those choices however.

It is obvious that no one wants us to create some new scheme and impose it on Canadians. They want us to listen to them, not just to special interests, not just to the experts, but to the people who may need these programs and who will pay for them. This government is committed to doing just that.

With the release of this discussion paper we are saying we can get people back to work. We can build a society with skills that attract investment. We can help individuals meet the challenges of life in a society and an economy that face constant change. We can take steps to ensure that more people are better off in the long term, thanks to our actions in this House. The status quo will not be satisfactory. The time has come to act.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I am glad someone on the Liberal side recognizes there is a danger

of losing broad public support and confidence in our social safety net and the ability of government to deliver services on behalf of all of us. I am saying that confidence has already evaporated.

I am also encouraged to hear the member admitting that change is inevitable, that the current situation cannot be sustained. It would not matter what political party was in power, we would have to move toward the reform of our basic social safety nets.

I am also encouraged to hear that the member is looking at the priority of needs, focusing on social spending. In fact, a lot of what I heard from the hon. member today sounds like it could have come from a Reform member of Parliament. I detect somewhat of a divergence however in the encouragement and hopefulness he has and what his minister is saying. I hope he will do what he can from his side of the House to encourage his minister to truly live up to the optimism the hon. member has.

I am not so encouraged by this hon. member's optimism that the government's plan is actually going to be delivered by the minister. Certainly there are hard choices to be made. He is suggesting there will be ongoing consultation to let the people speak. He certainly gives lip service or acknowledgement to a philosophy I agree with. However, I hope there is real substance. You might ask: "Where's the beef?" Well where is the real substance in what the minister delivered? I hope his optimism is not lacking in the long run.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate there is going to be a lot of smoke and mirrors based on the partisanship in the House. Unfortunately, Canadians from time to time are going to wonder if what members are saying is clear to all concerned.

The Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a discussion paper. Yet time after time when I hear opposition members address the discussion paper, they criticize it as if it were a piece of legislation. As the member has just said, they ask: "Where's the beef?" Well, if it were a piece of legislation it would have each and every single step and program the government was proposing to address the problems, but this is not a piece of legislation. This is a discussion paper for all Canadians.

The government has said very clearly that we can no longer simply tinker with social programs. It is necessary for us to make some major changes in the way and the kinds of programs we deliver to Canadians. That is why we have this discussion paper. That is why Canadians are being given the opportunity through their members of Parliament to express their views to make absolutely sure that all hon. members understand the needs, the desires and what we can afford to deliver to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight for members of the House a number of initiatives in Atlantic Canada that reinforce the need for social reform and place a stronger emphasis on the federal-provincial co-operation and consultation.

At the forefront of the social reform process is a discussion paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development. Throughout the discussion paper and at the core of social security reform is a vigorous emphasis on the need for continued and effective consultation. That means talking with Canadians, hearing their views and responding to their needs. However, consultation with Canadians is not enough.

Every section of the discussion paper produced by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, be it on learning, working or security, stresses that successful social reform is contingent upon a strong co-operative working relationship with the provincial and territorial governments. The key to developing that relationship and intrinsic to the social reform process is the strategic initiative program approved by the cabinet last May.

This program provides a unique mechanism for both levels of government to take actions in the high priority areas of employment, learning, education, income security and social services. Approved projects are funded on a 50:50 basis with the province or territory. Not only will this initiative promote an open dialogue with the provinces and territories, co-operation of this nature will also help us to eliminate waste, inefficient allocation of moneys and duplication in the existing systems.

There are many reasons why a strategic initiatives program is a critical component of the social security reform and there are many reasons why it is working. First and foremost, it gets Canadians back to work. It helps Canadians to help themselves.

We have made tremendous progress already, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. The initiatives that have been launched in co-operation with Atlantic Canada governments will touch the lives of over 10,000 Canadians currently at risk of becoming dependent on social assistance.

In New Brunswick over 1,000 Canadians will take their place in the ranks of the New Brunswick job corps. This program will give volunteers between the ages of 50 and 65 the opportunity to put their talents and expertise to work in their communities.

In Prince Edward Island the ready to learn and adult peer literacy tutoring project will make it easier for young adults who have found it difficult to gain access to traditional education facilities. The project will provide literacy training, life skills, academic upgrading and skills training to unemployment insurance and social assistance recipients. It is hoped that the ready to

learn project will remove the barriers to education that many Islanders have historically encountered.

In Newfoundland more than 5,000 Canadians will benefit from the transitions initiative. This three pronged program targets the young people, candidates for post-secondary education, recent university and college graduates, and working age adults.

In Nova Scotia 3,000 Canadians will benefit from four new programs designed to provide training and employment opportunities to working age adults currently out of work. The compass initiative targets those who need it the most, those at risk of long term dependency on social assistance: unemployed youth, single parents, and laid off fishers.

Each of these initiatives will not only help get Canadians back to work, they will return a sense of dignity and pride. Unfortunately, these things are often forgotten when one becomes lost in the maze of the current system. But these efforts are just the beginning.

Just this week the minister announced a new initiative in Charlottetown. Choices and opportunities will reinforce and strengthen social assistance for mentally challenged individuals. In St. John's, Newfoundland we have launched a pilot project centred around an earnings supplement initiative.

The spirit of co-operation that now exists between the federal and provincial governments indicates the importance of the federal-provincial collaboration and is indeed welcome. It is exciting to know that our provincial colleagues, Premiers McKenna and Wells, have announced their support and enthusiasm for the discussion paper, for this government's approach to social security reform in Canada, and for the initiatives that have already had an effect on their constituents.

To date, the Atlantic provinces have been most involved in the consultation process and in the implementation of the strategic initiatives program. But this is only the beginning; there is much more to be done.

Many workers in the Atlantic region are seasonal workers. The contributions of seasonal workers and seasonal industries are significant to our economic future. Tourism, fisheries, agriculture, forestry and construction are all extremely important industries and will remain so well into the future.

For this reason I feel the government must make a commitment to ensure these people receive help in adjusting to the changes that are adopted, whatever they might be.

As the Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated, this is a consultative process. I consider it very important to my constituents. That is why I have arranged for public forums next week and in November, in my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte, to provide the opportunity for direct input by my constituents.

We cannot rebuild our social security system overnight. Successful and effective reform tailored to the needs of this and coming generations require a strong foundation. We must build our future system one day at a time. Together with all provinces and territories we must work with Canadians to create an improved social security system. We will mould it to meet the requirements of Canadians. We look forward to a stronger and more cohesive working relationship with our provincial and territorial counterparts.

Together we can forge a social security system that will lead Canada into the 21st century.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague used the word consultation many times in his speech. Consultations must be based on real information. If the public is to decide or to give broad support to the hard choices to be made, it must be told the truth about the numbers and the real tradeoffs. The discussion paper is a reflection of the concerns the Liberals can no longer deny or avoid.

Will the member return to his riding and outline in cold, hard terms the choices to be made with the dollar value and the direct community result, not just for the few items in the green paper but for the whole social safety net package?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, it is my plan to go through the consultative stage with my constituents and offer them every opportunity to bring forward their ideas and their suggestions.

One of the early things I did, in conjunction with this paper the minister brought forward, was to have the minister confirm to me the exact opportunity he has put forward for the consultation. I wanted to be assured that it was true and factual that the consultation was going to be listened to and we would have an opportunity to make change.

The minister has assured me of that. I am very confident my constituents will have suggestions and ideas that can be brought back to the standing committee, the minister and the department. This is helpful in the process of coming up with a plan and a program that will be beneficial to all Canadians for the 21st century.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to tell the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), the following period of debate allotted to our party will be divided in two.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the reform of the Canadian social security system. Earlier I heard the hon. member say: "We have difficult choices to make". It seems to me that the choices are not so difficult.

I also often heard the other side ask us to propose something. I have a proposal for you. I realize how difficult it is for the other side to make choices. When a bill aimed at changing the rules of political party financing was introduced 15 days ago, some members on the other side voted with us but most voted against us because their very wealthy friends put money in their coffers. It is easy to understand how subsequent choices can be extremely difficult to make.

True, there are two choices. But why did we have to choose? In Mr. Trudeau's time, the government got this country into debt by going on a spending spree that continued under the Conservatives. It was not the fault of the opposition parties, not the Reform Party's, not ours and not the NDP's. They were not in power. Who got Canada into debt during the past 30 years? The two parties that were in power. We have a debt of $530 billion, with $40 billion worth of interest payments, and as a result there are some choices we must make.

Which option do we choose? Are we going to take money from the haves or are we going to empty the pockets of the have-nots? We say get it where it is to be found. Let us do it, let us raise billions of dollars from family trusts, people who do not pay income tax and the multinationals in this country. That is where we should get those billions of dollars. Not the pennies in the pockets of the poor.

That is what I would do. And now, a look at the other side. Last week, the Canadian Council on Social Development again sounded the alarm when it noted the distressing fact that more than one million children do not get enough to eat. One million children! In the schools where I taught, many children went without lunch. Fortunately, there were some Good Samaritans who paid for their meals. Why did these children go without food?

Their parents were in debt. They had three or four children, and they bought a car, chain saw and boat on credit, and when school started, they also had to buy books and exercise books. They had to pay the student association membership. There was no money left for food. I am convinced that the purpose of social security reform in this country should be to fight poverty, not the poor. So far, the trend has been to take money away from the poorest in our society, and that is how I see this reform.

The objective should be,in this supposedly great and beautiful country, to create more social justice, not to come down harder on the neediest, the disenfranchised and the weakest members of our society. The objective should be to ensure a better distribution of wealth, which is not the case today. The rich are getting richer, while the poor have for years and years been getting poorer.

I am not convinced that this is what the minister responsible had in mind, and I am not convinced that what he had in mind is right for this government. The unstated objective of this reform, as I see it, is solely and entirely to reduce government spending by penalizing more and more the disadvantaged, those who cannot speak for themselves.

Conservative policies of this sort have the effect of causing a dramatic rise in unemployment and poverty levels in this country. Conservative policies are directly responsible for the systematic impoverishment of the middle class and lower-income taxpayers.

This government acts like a producer who would stop feeding his cattle. Do you think that is the way to increase production? Do you think he would achieve better results by cutting rations? Do you think he would get a better yield if he stopped cultivating his land? To get results, investments must be made in the right places and cuts must also be made in the right places.

Cutting in postsecondary education will make it impossible for a large number of people to get adequate training. Because, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are still no general and vocational colleges in my region-there is one in Matane- and no universities-you have to go to Rimouski, Quebec, Laval, Montreal- cuts in postsecondary education will mean that hundreds of students will not be able to further their education.

If the costs double or triple, we will no longer be able to afford sending our young people to university. The university in Rimouski is great, except that it does not offer all programs. That is why we have to go to Laval or some other university. Cutting in postsecondary education certainly is not a good way to help the labour force adjust to the present conditions of the future labour market.

Literally crushing seasonal workers and the poorest of the poor by creating two categories of UI recipients certainly is not the best way to restore hope in our society. In our region, forestry workers have work for only four or five months each year; those who get to work five months are considered extremely lucky. During this period, because it is a very short period, they start work very early in the morning and finish very late at night. Many totally wreck their health in the process. If they undergo any more conditioning, this will increase their stress load.

A few years ago, a family man had to keep chopping down trees even if he was very sick because he had to collect enough stamps, not because he did not want to work. Quebecers, especially the people in my riding, want to work. The unemployment rate in my riding is among the highest. The people want to work. They want the jobs that were promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That is all we heard during the election campaign: jobs, jobs and more jobs.

The lack of jobs makes these people feel insecure and helpless. They appear to be almost ashamed, even when they are working.

This government has waited much too long, even if it has been a year-just as previous governments waited too long-to find decent jobs for the people in the regions, especially rural regions. If this government wants respect, it should start by respecting the poor. Only then will it command our respect.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker I thank the member for his dissertation. I found it extremely interesting. He is right in a lot of respects. Poor people have to be fed. When they are young it is very important that they are fed and oriented properly in order for us to prosper as a society.

A very perplexing thing has happened to me since I came to the House. I understand that over the years we perpetuate things. Members of the opposition, and perhaps members on all sides of the House, get into political discussions and dissertations about how the pie should be cut. They want to keep the existing structures and situations because it is politically expedient to do so.

At the turn of the century we changed from steam power to electricity. Right now we are at the advent of the information era. We know what has happened to Bill Gates. It is a good example of what happens by using resources and entrepreneurship and getting into new technology. If some of us had embraced that approach it would have helped us out of the economic recession which started in the sixties and is being perpetuated now.

The objective of the whole exercise of social reform is: What do we do from here? How can we get people more prepared? How can we use resources better? How can we make sure that debt does not climb?

I ask the member opposite to give us some ideas, notwithstanding the concerns. We all know about those concerns. The whole object of the exercise is to make the process better. How can we make it better, not complain about how many pieces of pie we can keep or whether we belong to one region or another?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very good question and I am very proud of him. Of course, there are ways to make it better. I will give you at least one example. The money we could spend on forestry, say, is not a subsidy but an investment. Mr. De Bané himself said when he was a minister a few years ago-he is now a senator, unfortunately-that it is an investment. Replanting forests no longer replenished by nature is an investment. There are so many other examples I could give you. We could hire twice as many forestry workers since lumber is now in great demand. They are reluctant to do that.

In my region, they have the Eastern Plan, which my colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is very familiar with. We fervently hope that it will be renewed as it can put people to work. Let me give you just one example in forestry.

Most farm owners tell me that they only have two people working on their farms when there is often enough work for five people. These small farmers cannot afford to pay decent wages to their employees. Something could be done. We could create hundreds of jobs that would be extremely valuable to the whole community and would in turn benefit both the federal and the provincial governments.

I could of course give you other examples but I will limit myself to these two just to show you that it is possible to create jobs.

The federal government is very wary whenever we offer solutions.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. It is always a pleasure to speak when you occupy the Speaker's Chair.

I want to say right away that I am pleased to speak in a debate like this because I represent a riding in east-end Montreal which of course went through some very bad times in the last two recessions, in the 1980s and the 1990s.

On listening to my colleagues, I said to myself that I am not a supporter of the status quo. I want to say that at the outset of this debate so that I can perhaps discuss it later in answer to a question that our colleague might raise.

I think that the minister did something laudable in proposing social programs, but there is a paradox. The minister proposes-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I am grateful for the kind of co-operation from my friend, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

However, there is a paradox because social programs are basically tools that now belong to the provinces. That is how it should be, with one exception: unemployment insurance is the only program where the federal government has any legitimacy at all to act. Let us remember the context. When the federal government announced the unemployment insurance plan, it was the first amendment to the 1867 constitution and it came in the wake of the Rowell-Sirois report. We know what things were like at that time: it was a time of trouble and war, which gave rise to heated discussions.

What a paradox! Imagine the 33 Fathers of Confederation-I apologize for the fact that there were no women-including Cartier, Langevin, Galt, Baldwin and others, coming back here to see the central government of a federation want to interfere in social programs, when neither those 33 Fathers nor their successors gave that government any authority to do that. That, in my opinion, is the problem with the Canadian federation.

The problem is that when you are in Ottawa, you think that there is a single labour market. However, this is not possible, it is not true and it would not be good in a continental country like Canada. The fact is that there are fewer and fewer continental countries with a federal regime like Canada. And that does not make me sorry.

The problem for any federal government, regardless of its good intentions-and I am prepared to admit that the minister does have good intentions-is that there are several labour markets. Canada is a continental country in which the job market in Rimouski and the Gaspe peninsula obviously does not reflect the same reality as in Calgary, for example. This is why social programs administered by Ottawa, because of their structure, are of course very inadequate.

Many economists-and I hope we have an opportunity to discuss this issue during the referendum debate-see a rather direct link between the growth of the Canadian debt since 1970 which, as the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane mentioned earlier, is around $540 billion, and the government's will to interfere in the social program sector through various schemes. What we are saying, and I think this is a reasonable suggestion which deserves to be looked at, is that the federal government has money.

The first part of the document, which includes an inventory of the federal initiatives as well as an overview of labour market patterns, is well done. However, things deteriorate in the second part. In the first part, we are told that federal contributions amount to $38 billion. How do you explain the fact that a government which has nothing to do with social programs would invest an almost unprecedented $38 billion?

I was looking at the study released by the OECD during the last summit attended by the Minister of Industry. With its $38-billion contribution, the Canadian government is among the top investors; yet, because this money is badly invested, because it is not allocated where users could be the primary beneficiaries, the official unemployment rate in our country is still at 10 or 12 per cent.

These are complex issues and we must be careful not to view them in an overly simplistic way. However, I am convinced that all of us, wherever we are, must work towards the implementation of a full employment policy. It is quite a paradox to see that the expression full employment is not used even once in this document.

The minister's objective is to look after the jobless. This is a noble goal but it is not enough. We would have expected this debate to start with a policy on job creation, because the idea is not to manage the unemployed but indeed to integrate those trying to enter the labour market.

When you look, as the hon. member for Mercier and other members of this House have, at the conditions under which a country, regardless of its political structures, can achieve full employment, you note a rather obvious correlation between the size of the communities or countries-the smaller the better-and the level of success achieved in that respect. This is understandable. To achieve full employment, you must first get the national partners to sit at an employment table so that, together, with their legitimacy, they can set economic objectives.

We will never be able to have a national table to discuss full employment in Canada because the Atlantic fishermen, the people of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec all have employment structures that differ radically one from the other. This is the first impediment, one that I consider to constitute a systemic barrier, therefore confirming to the federal government the fact that the greatest favour he can do the public as a public administration is to decentralize funding towards the authorities who are in the best position to achieve full employment, that is to say, in the first place, the provinces. Municipalities could even be made choice partners in this process. Why not? This government however yearns for visibility and it will soon, as soon as possible, have to face the Quebec electorate who will make a constitutional decision. I can understand the difficulty for a government like this one to readily accept to withdraw from this kind of visibility. However, that is the price to be paid if you want to put people back to work, in my humble opinion.

In addition to the debt and other barriers to full employment, there is something else that is very disturbing. It is the fact that from 1990 onward, and especially the jobs are created in the year 2000-we both expect to live that long, Mr. Speaker-that those jobs will require 16 years of schooling. Sixteen years means a CEGEP technical diploma, that is what it means. However, and the minister said so in his paper, more than 100,000 students drop out of our educational institutions every year.

The obvious challenge for those who want to put people to work is to make the connection between training, education and the jobs available. In Quebec, we say that education is a priority and vital to our identity, and that is of course the choice we made.

This is different from the 19th century, when the job market was linked to immigration and to means of transportation, which is understandable from a historical perspective as they had to build a very sparsely populated country where immigrants' contribution had a major impact on labour policies. No wonder we talk about employment and immigration centres. That is no longer the case. The three components of labour force access are education, which is a provincial jurisdiction, as well as-I think the minister was right to mention it in his paper, although it is outside his mandate-all family support services.

Things have changed since the typical family included a breadwinner working outside the home, a homemaker and children from a first marriage. This is no longer the Canadian reality.

In conclusion, that is why we believe that the minister must tackle social program reform. But he must be generous, sensible and compassionate enough to recognize that the best thing he can do is to decentralize this money and allow the provinces, especially Quebec which has considerable experience dealing with the issue of full employment-A national forum on employment was held in 1985, and I must say that one of the first things the Parizeau government did was to make plans for creating a ministry of state mandated to consult on employment. The best thing this government can do to put Canadians and Quebecers to work is to decentralize this money and recognize that it is not the government best able to put Canadians to work.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently listened to the two members of the Bloc. One thing we can all agree on is that the buzzword is choices. That is the operative word.

By talking about choices it assumes that we cannot have it all. The country is broke and we are still spending like a drunken sailor. The steering wheel of the ship of state is not being tended.

We are talking about cutbacks today because we cannot afford the current situation. I think the members have highlighted the kind of thinking that has got us into the present mess. Fight poverty and need with deficit financed assistance rather than appropriately building an economy of opportunity that will then be capable of adequately providing for those who are disadvantaged.

The present result is one of failure and his reasoning, continuing on the present course of continuing to deficit finance, will continue to bring us to where we are today where we cannot adequately meet requirements.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for taking part in the debate. I think that what distinguishes us-and I say this up front-is that as a political party we are convinced that the best way to help the disadvantaged is not just to let market forces prevail. We admit that our society never had as many poor people as it does today. That is true for Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and many regions of the country.

The difference is that we think what makes the government ineffective in fighting poverty is the political structure. Take the very concrete example of a man without work who comes to our riding office. Right away we see that various options are available if he is on welfare; they are not the same if he is on unemployment. Why? Because two levels of government administer these programs.

Nevertheless, the need is the same; he needs training so that he can re-enter the work force. I am convinced that things would be much simpler if we had the government that is closer to the people, namely the provincial government, the Government of Quebec to take the example that I know; I think that the results would be much more satisfactory if funds could be concentrated in the hands of one single manager and if all the available options and programs were offered in one and the same structure.

Sometimes people try to make a distinction between the constitutional structure and the labour market, but that is wrong. We must admit that the two are closely connected. If I were convinced that the central government is the best one to put people to work, I would not be a sovereignist.

I am not a sovereignist because I love the sound of that word. I am a sovereignist because I think that we should have only one government. When someone-who knows, it might be the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-proves me wrong, I will be pleased to review my position, but for now I am not convinced.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has demonstrated that the Canadian fiscal position has constitutional connections. In view of this fact, is the slow, stop-and-go approach the government is planning to take in this reform not paradoxical? One gets the impression that it is trying to put things off until after a certain event has taken place in Quebec. I would like my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to comment on this.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Admittedly, the work plan presented to us a few weeks ago was supposed, as the minister stated repeatedly, to lead to the establishment of a much more precise schedule than the one before us at this time.

Like my hon. colleague, I note and share the opinion that, having nothing to offer in terms of job creation and knowing the disastrous results the referendum will have from its point of view, this government has decided to buy time and defer the objectives it had set for itself.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to develop a little on the topic that was raised by my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby.

Here we are 12 months downstream from the election with our total debt around about $45 billion higher than it was a year ago and with our entire social safety net in danger of collapse. In the time that it takes me to give this short speech our debt will have gone up by about $1 million. By the time this government actually gets around to doing anything we probably will have added another $10 billion to the debt. We will be that much closer to a total economic collapse.

Governments always seem to take too long to take care of fiscal problems. This House knows that I am originally from New Zealand and that I am very familiar with the fiscal crisis that hit New Zealand in 1984. Dependence on social programs in New Zealand was in the end reduced not by consultation and not by long delays and green books. Instead it ended up being slashed to the bone because the country went bankrupt.

A New Zealand style debt crisis is not the most pleasant way to reform social services.

I think perhaps it is worth reviewing some of the things that happened in New Zealand. This may help some of our government members understand the seriousness of our debt and deficit situation and the threat that the debt holds for the very survival of our social programs.

Getting control of government spending is a tough job and we know that. New Zealand's debt doubled from $22 billion in 1984 to $46 billion in 1994 by the time the first surplus occurred. These numbers are small compared to the numbers for Canada, but the fact is that the total debt doubled before expenditures came under control in the New Zealand situation.

When New Zealand hit the wall, the annual deficit could not be reduced to zero overnight. Emergency IMF funding permitted continued deficits while the economy restructured. It was these deficits over the 10 year period that caused the debt to double.

Think about what would happen to Canada in a similar crisis. We all know that the only way to balance the budget overnight would be to virtually eliminate every existing social program-welfare, UI, pensions, you name it-in order to save the necessary $40 billion.

In practice this could not be done because of the social consequences. The IMF would allow Canada to continue to incur decreasing deficits as social programs were abandoned and the population adapted to the changes. Just as in the case of New Zealand, this could easily result in the doubling of Canada's debt by the year 2004.

In other words, if we hit the wall tomorrow it is quite likely that our debt would balloon to a trillion dollars or more before we began showing surpluses.

By then, even if we have stable interest rates, the interest payments on the debt will be over $100 billion a year. Growth in the economy would help reduce the relative size of that interest payment but it is virtually equal to 100 per cent of today's tax receipts.

This is a very serious situation and just like New Zealand, it will not be solved with green books and discussion papers. Every single month that we delay the decision to make significant cuts, we add another $3.5 billion to our debt load and we simply cannot go on this way.

New Zealand was forced to take drastic action but a phoenix has risen from the ashes. New Zealand had a $600 million surplus this year and is forecasting $2 billion for next year. The government has promised tax reductions beginning in 1996 but a key to this is that New Zealanders must refrain from demanding any expansion of government programs or services.

This is very important. Canadians too must learn to refrain from demanding any expansion of government services and programs. In fact they must demand less. In 1984 immediately after the debt crisis the New Zealand dollar dropped about 20 per cent to be worth 62 cents Canadian. It held there until about 1992 by which time the reorganization of the economy had taken place.

Since August 1993, it has gained 17 per cent against the Canadian dollar and now stands at 84 cents. In the same time, it gained 8 per cent against the U.S. dollar, a significant measure of the strength of the New Zealand economy.

New Zealand introduced business style performance standards for public servants. The equivalents of deputy ministers were renamed chief executives, hired on fixed term contracts and made personally responsible for delivering measurable results.

Like business executives, they had the power to hire and fire and to buy any equipment they needed but they had to perform. I wonder how long some of the government's deputy ministers would last if they had to deliver measurable results.

Along with requiring results of its civil service, the New Zealand government passed a law requiring any surpluses to be used to pay down the debt and thankfully it is now into that cycle.

New Zealand's youth now have a future of reducing debt burden to look forward to while Canada's youth still have a future of increasing debt burden. The enforced social program reform in New Zealand extended to farming and corporate welfare as well.

Almost overnight came the complete removal of subsidies for farmers. Bankruptcy for farmers and the loss of food production was widely predicted but in fact there are more farmers farming today in New Zealand and making more money per farmer than they did before the government subsidies were taken away. They now grow what the world needs instead of what the government was paying them to grow.

There is a lesson there. When one pays people so much that it is more attractive to sit at home than to work, when one subsidizes farmers to grow crops that the world does not need, when one gives out grants to business and special interest groups one produces a dependency that kills jobs, kills initiative and kills individual responsibility.

When I left New Zealand in 1979 to emigrate to Canada, I left a socialist country very close to bankruptcy. The writing was on the wall there just as it is here in Canada today. However New Zealand today is a free enterprise country, very different to the one I left.

I am absolutely convinced that by studying the New Zealand experience we will be far better equipped to handle our own debt and deficit situation. If there was one MP travel junket that would actually be in the interests of Canadian taxpayers, it would be an all expenses paid trip to New Zealand for the Minister of Human Resources Development. He needs to see what is coming and he needs to see it soon.

There is no doubt that we need social service reform but it is highly unlikely that the 89 pages of fluff in the minister's green book will make any significant contribution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the comments made by the hon. member.

We often hear this New Zealand example being given either by the opposition members or certain doomsayers of all kinds. If I am not mistaken, the population of New Zealand is three million and the active economy is not any larger than that of Alberta. I understand the process in what it had to go through in restructuring its economy and what not. If we look at the industrial and economic profile of New Zealand in comparison to Canada there is very little to compare except the debt figures that the hon. member would probably like to bring to our attention.

I would like him to give us a better description of what the realities were at the time in New Zealand versus Canada. Canada has a population ten times that of New Zealand with an economy which is closely linked to that of the United States and other western powers. We are a G-7 nation and we have a lot of things going for us than New Zealand had at the time.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for paying close attention to my speech and asking interesting questions.

The population of New Zealand is a fraction of that of Canada. The only message we can get from that is we are going to be given a lot more rope to hang ourselves than New Zealand was given by the international buyers of its debt load.

Up to 60 per cent of our debt today is being purchased by foreigners. The day they pull the plug on us it will not matter what sort of resource base we have. We will be scrambling to find money.

Sweden has had difficulties with its international financing. It is really not related to population other than you get, as I said, more rope to hang yourself.

The New Zealand model is a very good model for what will happen here. It was pretty tough right after the debt crisis. However the average person on the streets in New Zealand was extremely happy to see the government finally taking the initiatives they had wanted them to take all along.

It is no good pretending there are not people abusing our social services system. There are lots of them and we had better be prepared to stand up, admit it and get on top of the problem. New Zealand was forced to because the money tree was taken away. That may well happen here. But I hope we come to the realization that we have to do something before the plug gets pulled on us too.