House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.
Public Service Staff Relations ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the chief whip of the official opposition has asked me to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the vote on the motion stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. on Monday, when the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to further defer the division from Monday at 5.30 p.m. to Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
Public Service Staff Relations ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent of the House to accept the proposition?
The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the following motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development:
That this House take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by Canadians with regard to this reform.
I believe the discussion paper on improving social security in Canada, tabled by the minister some weeks ago in the House, is a very welcome and courageous document. As with all initiatives that involve courage there is the potential for controversy and for misrepresentation. Certainly we have seen a fair amount of both since the issuance of the discussion paper.
I am not surprised by that. Indeed I would be disappointed if there were not such controversy and I would certainly be surprised if there were not some misrepresentation. It is the nature of our system of government that for every point of view there is a counter point of view. It is the nature of the way things get done in the Chamber that very often people who choose to take an opposing point of view are not hampered by the facts in some cases. They tend to do a bit of fearmongering and create a whole lot of what if scenarios: Does the government mean to do this or does it mean to do that?
I am not surprised by the misrepresentation and indeed I welcome the controversy. The minister and the government have wanted a full scale discussion on this issue and that presumes a discussion of the facts in play.
What I like about the discussion paper is that it raises a series of questions. Do we want this? Do we want that? They are questions. The standing committee is now travelling around the country to canvass the views of Canadians and to invite Canadians who cannot appear before the committee by reason of distance, time or whatever to send their views. I repeat the invitation to send their views to the committee and to their respective members of Parliament but particularly to the committee. As sure as night follows day there will be changes in the social security package as we know it in Canada. There has to be changes.
One of the reasons there has to be changes is that the present system was put in place so long ago that in the intervening time there have been new demands and new realities. Another reason change is needed is that no matter how tightly the rules are written there is always potential for abuse. I could indicate, as could many members of Parliament, many specific examples of where a particular package within the social security network has been abused.
That must never be an argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Unemployment insurance is a good system. It has served us well. Have there been abuses? My friend from Elk Island is probably in the category to which I just made reference. He would probably be leading the charge. He would be the pied piper of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Judging by his reaction in the House at this moment, he would be the kind of person who would want to get rid of the whole system. I am not one of those. That is where he and I differ.
There have been abuses in the UI system; I can document many hundreds of them. The abuses need to be corrected but the basic premise remains. The basic premise is that there are people who need to be assisted financially from one work opportunity to the next one. That is the basic premise of the UI system and we cannot lose sight of that. Nor can we lose sight of the abuses. That is one of the reasons this discussion paper is before us right now.
I could refer to other programs. There are abuses of any program embraced by the social security net, but for each of those programs there is a basic premise. For example, are there people who need an old age supplement? Yes, there are and I can give a list of many tens of thousands of them who need it.
With reference to what my friend from Gander-Grand Falls was saying a few days ago, was it ever intended that the old age security program should help people who already net several million dollars a year to get some more millions, some more dollars? No. Was it ever intended that 2,340 millionaires in this country should be able to draw unemployment insurance and benefit therefrom in tax terms? No, but that is happening. Now what is the solution?
There are two possible solutions, I suppose, theoretically. There is a sure way of guaranteeing that not one of these 2,340 people draw UI ever again. Wipe out the system. Wipe the system out completely and you will have guaranteed that none of them ever draw it because it will not be there to draw on. But what will you have done in the meantime? You will have ignored the basic premise of the program, the basic reason for the program in the first place: To help those who genuinely have financial need to get from one work opportunity to the next work opportunity.
With respect to unemployment insurance, old age security, medicare, university tuition, transfer payments, let us not lose sight of what their basic raison d'être was in the first place, the basic reason for putting them in place.
There is going to be and there is already a very wide debate. We saw an aspect of it yesterday here in front of the Parliament Buildings when many thousands of university students came to the Hill. I for one was glad to see them there. It is part of the debate that must go on. It must be an informed debate. I hear and I read in the papers a lot of information, a lot of misinformation, a lot of fear mongering. No matter what you attempt to do as a
public policy maker or as government, the NIMBY factor immediately comes into play. NIMBY, not in my back yard.
Any Canadian, any taxpayer anywhere in the world will respond to the following set of questions in the following way: Do you want to improve roads? Yes. Do you want to pay for them? No. It is the nature of how politics is done in democracies around the world. Do you want change? Yes. Do you want it to cost you? No. NIMBY. Do it by all means, politicians, please do it, but do not do it in my backyard. Do not affect me adversely.
Well budgeting in government is like a zero sum. Again, as soon as you spend it somewhere you have to take it from somewhere else.
So I say to university students, I say to unemployment insurance recipients, I say to old age pensioners, I say to recipients of medicare, I say to all of them out there including those of them who are my constituents: If you want change you are going to have to accept a basic fact of life. Change will mean improvements in some areas from your perspective but a less adequate measure in other areas from your perspective. Everybody sees it from his or her own perspective.
If you want the status quo, we can just tear up this little green book and we can allow the abuses to go on, allow the millionaires to continue receiving their unemployment insurance. We can allow that to go on, but that would be unthinkable. Therefore we have taken the other route as a government of which I am a supporter of saying that changes are needed but before we trigger those changes let us see what kind of changes you have in mind.
That is why we are having quite a far reaching consultation with the Canadian people. I have been encouraged by the kinds of letters I get, the kinds of spontaneous dialogue I encounter in airports and elsewhere around this country. I have been quite encouraged. But do not for a moment make the assumption that the vested interests are going to allow that dialogue to continue unfettered. There are vested interests.
If for example the government contemplates a change in a funding formula for various organizations around this country, the paid staff in that organization immediately says: "What does this mean for my job? If the subsidy from government is less or wiped out altogether, what does it mean for my job?"
Understand that we are talking about a discussion paper. Nobody has said that we are going to do this, this and this. The government through the Minister of Human Resources Development has said: "Here are some questions about what could be done. Canadians, what do you think?"
Let us go back to the organization I was talking about. The guy or the girl sitting behind a desk in a job that is funded by a government subsidy says: "Is it not possible that if they change the system there might be less money flowing to this organization? Therefore, my welfare, my livelihood, my pay, my job might be at stake". It does not take a nuclear scientist to figure out that the next thought that person may well have is: "How can I stop that from happening? I could mobilize a great rally. I could mobilize some letter writing".
Why has he or she done it in that example? Is it because he or she does not think there is a need for change? No. It has been done for the NIMBY reason: Not in my backyard; do not adversely affect me; however good your intentions, however good this program will serve the country, do not do it because it might affect my pocketbook.
Is there controversy? Oh yes, there is lots of controversy. Will there be more? Yes, I certainly hope there will be a lot more. Because at the end of the day when the smoke has cleared, everyone will see that this government will bring in a social security reform package which reflects the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast. Will everybody be happy? I doubt that very much. However I sincerely believe that most of them will be happy if they honestly engage in the process along the way, if they ignore the fear mongers, read the document themselves and respond to the document themselves.
I have some concerns about the process. I hope this does not fall into the category of the fear mongering I have just castigated. I subscribe to the view that what is in this document is basically a series of questions. However you would need to be deaf, dumb, blind and everything else not to realize there are some implied policy directions in this document.
One relates to the issue of university tuition. The government has not said it is going to do it, but it certainly has wondered out loud as to whether that is the route to go. Whether it goes that route or not depends on what Canadians say about the issue in the next few weeks.
The government has wondered out loud about seasonal workers versus workers who only have occasion to tap into unemployment insurance benefits spasmodically and infrequently. I have a very decided view on that issue.
Let us take an example of two brothers or sisters who are doing the same job. They are both carpenters driving nails and building the same office building in Toronto or St. John's. They both work for 18 or 19 weeks and both get laid off. Then UI says to one: "You came straight to this job from another job out in Cold Lake, Alberta where you worked for six years. You have no record of being unemployed over the last six or eight years so you are going to get a certain rate of remuneration or benefit while you are looking for work". However UI says to the other brother: "Before your 18 weeks, you were out of work for two
or three months. It was through no fault of your own mind you. It was not because you are lazy because you are not, but because you could not find work. However we are going to pay you a lesser rate".
Forget Liberalism, forget Reformism, forget Blocism. Let us talk another theology called fairness. Let us talk about basic fairness and another theology called basic common sense. The two brothers having worked the same amount of time driving the same kind of nails and getting the same rate of pay receive different UI payments. Who can buy the more groceries? That is the issue.
Remember that UI was put in place in the first instance to help tide a person over from one work opportunity to the next work opportunity. If in the process we say to a person who through no fault of his own has had fewer work opportunities that we are going to give him less money to buy the groceries to get him to the next work opportunity, that comes down to not a matter of political ideology, but to a basic matter of fairness. It is blatantly unfair to contemplate that approach. That is the kind of feedback I am getting and I expect others are getting too.
If it is a matter of deficit reduction, if it is a matter of having the UI fund live within its means, there is another way to fix that. The way to do it is not through unfairness. Instead of paying that fellow that rate and that other person another rate let us just equalize it. We may have to pay one fellow a bit less and the other fellow a bit more. It is not a matter of dollars here. We are not talking overall costs. We are talking another issue. We are talking about whether we believe as parliamentarians in a system that is fair. I can tell this House that I do and I will oppose any suggestion that would treat Canadians unfairly.
I have just given one quick example of where my eyes are open in case the need arises to have them open on that issue. Lest some colleagues who just joined us got bogged down in my examples, let me remind all concerned, including the people outside the House who may be watching, that the Minister of Human Resources Development put down a motion that the House take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming reform of social security programs and take note of the views expressed by Canadians.
I spent most of my time on the latter issue. I believe the success of this process or its failure will be determined largely by the degree to which we give Canadians an opportunity to say what they think of the proposals, say what their answers are to the questions and the degree to which we listen to that feedback.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy interventions by the member for Burin-St. George's. Actually, without any disrespect to him, he did remind me of a friend I have who used to talk endlessly and used many words. When I challenged him on it one time he said: "I am a mathematician. I just use statistics. By the law of averages if I speak long enough and fast enough sooner or later I will say something important". Without putting the member down, there were many words but not terribly many solid ideas in his speech.
One place I was invoked to make a little comment was when he was speaking about unemployment insurance. I have said unemployment insurance is exactly what its name implies. It ensures that we have unemployment, and so it has been. I could give many examples but that is not my purpose right now.
The fundamental difference between the Liberal philosophy on social programs and the Reform philosophy, which is more a philosophy of self-determination or looking after oneself, is that the Liberals make the assumption that unless the government does it, it will not be done. This is particularly true in the area of unemployment insurance and in many of our other social security programs. They somehow feel the government has to be doing it. We believe it is a function of the people, the taxpayers.
I made an observation while the hon. member was speaking. I have the advantage of being old enough to remember enough years and see changes over time. A way back we were very well off. I remember we had lots of jobs. Unemployment was very low. There were very few needy people in real need. Their needs were all met. Yet we did not have these government programs.
Now with all the government programs and the huge rate of taxation we find a dampening of the economy. The government sucks everything out of us. We know that marginal tax rates are 50 per cent or more. There is very little money left for the people to look after themselves and to help their neighbours.
I make a connection. I say that increased government involvement in these things has added significantly to our lack of efficiency, the downturn in the economy and the resulting hard times many of us face.
I would like to hear the member's response to my statement that we differ in philosophy. Would he perhaps consider admitting at least partially that the government is also part of the problem as opposed to thinking that it has not done enough to find a solution?
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Elk Island is one of the courageous people I was talking about earlier. Let me show his last effort at courage. Having said I said nothing in 20 minutes, he now has the courage to dare to ask if I can say
something substantive in 30 seconds. I am glad he was not trying to put me down. I am sensitive these days but I take his assurance at his word.
He tried to indicate the difference between Reformers and Liberals. I will put it more graphically for him. We do not think we should let poor people die because they are poor.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
You could have fooled me.
There is a need for those programs. Despite the fact that by the member's own admission he may be old, decrepit and so on, he misinforms the House. He can remember when there were programs. When was he born? Of course there was UI in his youth; of course there was social security. He should not mislead the House. These programs were not brought in by this administration or the previous one. These programs have been there for decades upon decades. The unemployment program goes back nearly half a century.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Slightly more. In reaching to make a point I say to him-he is my senior so I should not be trying to coach him in public like this-that he does not need to reach for falsehoods to prove his thesis. For him to stand in the House and say these programs have lately arrived is a falsehood; it is just not true. These programs were there when he was a baby.
Social Security ProgramsGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Burin-St. George's described another member of the House as being old and decrepit. I may have missed it, but was he quoting the member who had just spoken in using those words? If he was not quoting, I hope the member did not wish to describe any member in the House as being old and decrepit.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I was taking some poetic licence just to make a point in referring to one of the more virile and youthful members of the Chamber.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the reference to my age, mature and wise would be better than old and decrepit. In response to what the member has just said, surely I am not so old that I lived before these programs were in place. I guess they did come into place about the time I was in my youth. Certainly they were not nearly as invasive and pervasive as they are now. That is the difference.
We used to have a very modest program for unemployment insurance and everybody was employed. Now we have a pervasive program of unemployment insurance and we have a 12 per cent or 10 per cent rate of unemployment.
That is what I was talking about. There has been such an increase in government programs and such an increase in taxation as a result that the economic balance has been seriously tilted.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I have two points in response. First, I agree with my friend from Elk Island that government is much too pervasive. It is and I agree completely. The second point which I piggyback on the first one is that too often in the House we fall into the trap we are in again today. He felt obliged to rise and say "the member has said nothing; he talked ad nauseam" and so on. With respect, I said several things I think the member on reflection would agree are substantive.
I talked about the basic premise for UI and the basic premise for OAS. He may not agree with these premises, but he cannot say they are all verbiage. They are statements. Whether he agrees with them or not is another issue. He falls into the trap, and I did to a degree in response, of always being obliged to knock what the other guy said.
I tried to give as considerate a statement as I could during my 20 minutes in which I said where I am coming from on the issue of social reform. I measured beforehand its success or failure in terms of to what degree the government listens and how much the government canvasses opinion.
What I have said in short, and probably could have said more briefly, is that the jury is out on this one. I am not up here saying this is the best thing since sliced bread because I cannot see it yet. I do not know what it is. We should not fall into the trap of just knocking the other guy because he sits on the other side of the House. I happen to agree with the member for Elk Island that the government is too pervasive. One of the goals of the reform package ought to be to get government out of some people's hair.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. It is always interesting listening to him speak.
He mentioned the UI program. I would agree there have to be some changes for the UI program to continue. Of course the Reform Party has been talking about making the program actuarially sound. I would like his comments on that.
The member also raised an example of a UI situation. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House a situation in my own riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt which happened recently. We had a terrible forest fire in the Penticton region that devastated the area for quite some time over the holidays, our peak tourism season. God bless the people who came out to fight the forest fire. They were there to ensure the fire did not spread much farther than it did. We lost in the neighbourhood of a dozen homes; it could have been a lot worse.
Recently a company that does a controlled burn each year on a contract basis in the Merritt region went to the unemployment insurance people and said it needed some people to help with the controlled burn. Strangely enough the same people who fought the forest fire in Penticton were the people that year after year participated in the controlled burn. This year he could not get those people to come out. The UIC said that these people had been asked and they said: "No, we have had it with fires and working in the forests. We can do much better if we stay on UI for this period of time". This is an excellent example of abuse in the system.
What would the member do? What would be his suggestion to alleviate this situation?
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, on his question about whether I believe it ought to be actuarially sound, the answer is yes. I gave that answer in other words during my speech. I think I used the phrase that the fund ought to live within its means. I believe that. On his example, I can give him several like it. It is another example of how the UI scheme has been a disincentive to work.
I remember when I was a school superintendent in Newfoundland that I used to have people coming into my office on a number of occasions and saying: "You are the superintendent". "Yes". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". "Have you got a job for me here?" "No". "You are also the president of the Green Bay Economic Development Association?" "Yeah". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". "You have got another job up there, have you?" "No, no". "Now you are also involved with that park up on the highway". "Yeah". "How do you spell that?" "Yeah". They had just applied to three employers for employment. They could go back now and fill in their forms that they had approached three employers and they could not find work.
I also remember the day that a dear young former student of mine refused a job as a secretary. I knew why she was refusing it and I reported her. One of the reasons we have abuse has to do with the abusers. Another reason is the aiders and abettors, the employers who will not report the abuses.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will address the House on social program review today in a slightly different manner than is usual.
I will direct my comments to the pages in the Chamber for a couple of reasons. I think the pages might well listen to me. I find it sometimes frustrating to stand in the House and I do not think I am necessarily being listened to. I should like to address these young, enthusiastic, keen students who have come to Parliament. They are smart. They are a good example of what Canada should reflect upon.
They are fluently bilingual. They are from all over the country. I notice a few of them gathering in the wings here. They are paying attention. They are listening to the fact that somebody wants to talk to them.
I know they are smart because they remember all our faces. They can call us by name. They are kind to me when I speak to them in French as I try to improve my French. They speak very slowly so I can comprehend what they say. I am speaking to them because what we are undertaking in this social program review will affect them a lot more than anyone else in the Chamber.
I will be dead and gone when the effects of the social program review are truly on the table. I speak to the pages and only to the pages. If others in the Chamber want to close their ears, look down at their papers and do other things, I give them my complete concurrence; I am not going to be upset if they do so. I do not think the pages will heckle me either. Maybe that is another benefit in talking to the pages.
Why are we undergoing a social program review in Canada today? During the election campaign a significant number of individuals got after me for the social program review thoughts that I had. I laid them out on the table pretty plainly. I did not find social program review to be a large part of the programs from some of the candidates who ran against me.
I read a very interesting article in Maclean's magazine just before the election. That article had a headline ``Social Programs: The Cuts to Come''. It described a process whereby we were going to undergo social program review no matter who was in power. It said it would not matter if it were the NDP, it would not matter if it were the Tories, it would not matter if it was the communist party from somewhere else, whether Reformers were in power or whether the Liberals were in power, there was going to be social program review.
I said there is no way that some of the parties that conducted this campaign could have a major social program review. I read the platform carefully. I said there is no way that the Liberals could have social program review. And here we are today with a major social program review.
I said to myself: Why are we now undergoing this social program review? Of course, the reason is staring us in the face. The reason is our debt. The debt leaves us with unsustainable social programs. As the article said, it would not matter who was sitting in the government benches, we would have that review.
I have had trouble in understanding the debt. All my life I have heard this spoken about. I am a car nut, a phrase that I bear proudly. I love old cars. I have a hobby of old cars. I finally figured out how I could explain the debt to the high school students. To the pages, here is what the debt means.
Each one of you young people in this chamber today owes to the federal government a brand new Camaro. It is a basic Camaro, not a fancy one. It has plain wheels. It does not have radial tires, it has plain tires. It is an automatic. It does not have electric windows, it has wind-up windows. It has a heater and it has a good motor. It will get you from home to the Parliament Buildings or from university to the Parliament Buildings every day. It is brand new. That is your debt to the federal government.
Do you know what the kids in the high schools said to me? They said: "Grant, where is my Camaro?"
If the current mandate of this government takes place and everything that they promise us unfolds, I say to the pages that they will owe the federal government a Z-28 Camaro. This Camaro will have alloy rims and an AM-FM stereo. It will not have a CD player. We are not quite that broke yet. It will have the big motor. Now, this motor is a hot motor, a 300 horsepower motor, zero to 60 in about 5.4 seconds. It has electric windows. It has nice thick upholstery in it. It is not the plain Jane model at all. That is their debt to this federal government.
When I told that to the high school students they really were upset because every one of them wants the Z-28 Camaro. They are beautiful cars, every kid's ideal. They said to me: "Where is my Z-28?"
The answer is: Your Z-28 you will pay for and it is in the hands of our federal government. Every single individual in Canada owes to the federal government that Camaro; every single infant, every single grandparent, every single member of these chambers. That is the reason that we are undergoing social program review.
The interest on the debt that we are paying is just paying for the borrowing each year. What a legacy to the pages. What a legacy my generation presents to you. Many of you, if you think carefully of this, will say: "Thanks a lot for the debt; thanks a lot for that legacy."
Will they look back with fond memories at their time here in these chambers? Will they look back and say: "I learned a lot as I was studying in university and was present and part of the history of these chambers?" I believe they will. Will they feel a part of Canadian history? We have a new Parliament. We have an opportunity with many new backbenchers who have never been tied to the old government ways, many individuals with bright thoughts, on both sides of the House ready to undertake new ideas, ready to reform the way government operates. Rookies. They know about the dissatisfaction of the public. They went to the doorsteps and heard the problems. Yet I see what I consider to be a slow slide back into some of the old ways of the old government.
I had an opportunity to sit with the HRD committee and talk about the consultation process it has undertaken. I am fully in agreement with the consultation process. Canadians need to know what the government is doing, need to have input, need to have the opportunity to reflect upon and express their viewpoint on the consultation process.
I am very critical of 15 members of Parliament flapping around the country like a wounded goose, going from major city to major city looking for public input. I am profoundly critical of the numbers of individuals who can reach them. I am profoundly critical of the cost of that exercise. I read that even though they have a somewhat crippled goose to fly around on, it will cost $800,000.
There is another mechanism for this government to consult the public on something like social program review. The mechanism is straightforward. The HRD minister presents a package that is very straightforward so that everyone has the same information. I look upon the best package as being a video. It would spread the HRD minister all over the country. I thought he would like that idea, with his smiling face in every townhall meeting.
Every single member of Parliament would take that video along with the background information and have townhall meetings throughout their constituencies; for the senior citizens in homes who do not get to have a consultation with the Minister of Human Resources Development and for those individuals in the small communities who are too busy to travel to the main cities. The cost would be very small. The taxpayers are already paying the member of Parliament's salary and already paying their way home. Who knows the constituency better?
That information would be gathered by the members of Parliament. They would come back and present that information to the committee which would look at all the input, profound input, close input, tight input, input that I think would be much more typical than special interest groups being paid for by the government to step forward.
I saw those individuals come to the committee before, one after another. I heard NIMBY, every single one of them with a NIMBY. At the second round of consultations the same people came back.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
I had an opportunity to say to them: "Who's paying you to come here?" I found that the government was financing not only their way here but the studies they were undertaking. One group had $40,000 for the brief that it came to the committee with.
We as individuals are paying not only for their trips but the briefs. Surely interested Canadians do not need $40,000 to tell the minister that there are specific things that they want him to conduct in social program review.
When I was an intern I once went mountaineering. Your pages, Mr. Speaker, are still young enough to be mountaineers. Let me tell a mountaineering story. I wanted to climb Mount Assiniboine, 11,870 feet, one of the really high peaks in the Rockies, a famous peak. It looks like the Matterhorn. It is a significant height to get to. I had a big back pack. I went with one of my buddies.
As we got into Assiniboia we met up with a fellow from California, a powerful looking young man with all the fancy equipment. I have never seen more mountaineering equipment in my life. It was the most modern, the best. He had ropes that were beyond our means. We had pretty inexpensive ropes and all our climbing equipment was used, tattered I suppose you would say.
We were going to climb Assiniboine and he asked to join us. Well, a pretty impressive group, but mountaineering is somewhat dangerous. We asked what his experience was. He had climbed all over, almost everywhere. He had climbed this peak, that peak, and had all this equipment so we said he should join us. He did.
We climbed early in the morning. You have to cross underneath the glacier in this particular spot. If you cross early enough in the morning the sun does not melt the ice and snow and there is very little risk. We crossed underneath the glacier at three in the morning, before the sun was up. We got to the place where the climb started to get a little bit risky, so we roped up. My buddy was on one end of the rope, the stranger in the middle, and myself on the end. We started to climb one at a time. The rope was simply for security.
We reached a point where there was a gravel slope with a very steep cliff at the end. The young man in the middle fell. He skidded down the gravel slope and went over the cliff. Of course the rope was designed so that we could arrest him. As I tried to get good footing, I also skidded down on the gravel, lost my footing completely and I was going over the cliff. This was 1,500 feet straight down. Gonzo, over the cliff. Luckily, because he was higher up on a better more secure spot, my buddy was able to arrest us both.
What lesson do I bring from this mountaineering story on Assiniboine to the pages? There is a huge risk in our society and the risk is that we will ignore our debt. The debt is going to pull us over the cliff and there will be no arresting us if we go over. The social programs will be gone if we go over that cliff.
We talk about review of the social programs. Forget the social programs if we go over the cliff of the debt. There are ample examples of this in other countries, New Zealand being the best one. The field I am so keen on is health care. I look at what happened to their health care system when they slammed into the debt wall. They went from a socialized health care system to one where every single visit to the doctor costs. Cough up, shell out. Do we want that in Canada? Do we need that in Canada? We do not. Social program review is necessary. Social program review is mandatory. You pages should have a part in social program review. I ask you, I beg you, I implore you to be involved. Speak up. Tell my generation what matters to you in social program review and, to the pages, thank you for listening to me.
Jesse Flis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind the viewers of what motion we are debating. It is Motion No. 15 which says that this House take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by Canadians with regard to this reform.
Last week when the House was not sitting I had a townhall meeting with an excellent attendance. I would like to share some of the views from my constituents in Toronto.
At that townhall meeting almost everyone in the audience agreed that a strong economy is the essence of a strong society. They also agreed with the government's two priorities, jobs and economic growth. The Government of Canada will meet those priorities by building a healthy fiscal climate, by getting the federal deficit down and eventually eliminating the public debt as some people have already stressed in this debate.
It will strengthen Canada's economic performance through investment, innovation and trade; review government programs and priorities, making sure that as a government we are concentrating our energy on the right things in the most effective way possible. Finally, it has the priority of reforming social security.
Why is reforming social security part of this agenda for growth? Because good social programs will put people and jobs together. The programs we have now do not do that well enough. It is time to rebuild and modernize our social security programs to build a system that will help people get back to work, help people get off welfare and build a better life for their families.
In education, prior to being a politician, I met families that were second and third generation on welfare. This has to stop. Our system will have to look squarely at the problem of child poverty and do something about it.
It is up to all Canadians to decide how we can build a system that works, that is fair, affordable and effective, with programs that open doors, not close them, to opportunity for people across our great country. The federal government has presented Canadians with some options for discussion. Now it is inviting all Canadians to consider how we can build such a system. How must our social programs change to stay in touch with the needs
people face today? What kind of programs make sense as Canada prepares for the 21st century?
At the town hall meeting I was asked why do we need reform? Because our social programs have not kept pace with the needs of Canadians. For too many people the system does not work any more. At this town hall meeting there was a qualified doctor who is on welfare. Because he got his training in another country he cannot work in Canada.
Canadian taxpayers are spending more than $38 billion a year on employment programs, UI, welfare, post-secondary education, child tax benefits and programs for disabled persons. Yet too many people are unemployed or find themselves caught in a revolving door going from UI to short term jobs and back to UI.
Too many children are living in poverty. Too many people are stuck on social assistance. They want to work, but under our present system they cannot afford to go to work. They are better off financially staying on social assistance.
Too many young people cannot get started in a career. It breaks my heart when I get a PhD graduate or a Master's graduate coming to my constituency office begging: "Mr. Flis, can you help me find work?"
In many ways the system keeps people on a treadmill instead of helping to solve their problems. Too many Canadians fall through the cracks. Too many Canadians find the rules stacked against them when they try to build better lives for themselves and for their children.
People here in Ontario know firsthand how urgent the need for reform is. Ontario today is at a crossroads. The recession and the effects of international competition have taken jobs we thought were secure. It has helped push unprecedented numbers of people on to unemployment insurance and social assistance rolls. Now that things are beginning to improve, our social programs do not do enough to help people to get back into the workforce.
We have been forced to recognize that our social programs were designed in an era that has passed into the history books. In 1993 the average unemployed worker in Ontario between the ages of 45 and 64 had been looking for work for 34 weeks. That figure masks the number who were facing much longer unemployment because of their limited skills and as a result of industrial change. For too many of them a plant shutdown meant a career shutdown. We can no longer afford that.
Ontario recognizes the need for reform as do all governments. Now is the time to work together. We need a system that works for people, that brings hope, that rewards initiative, that supports efforts to regain independence and the dignity of work. We need a system that Canadians can afford. All governments have to get spending under control if we are to take control of the future.
In my region we contend with four levels of government: federal, provincial, metro Toronto, Toronto and a lot of unnecessary duplication. We must do a better job in putting people and jobs together. Employment programs, things like job counselling, training, labour market information, work experience projects are a good investment if they help people get off UI or welfare and back to work. But existing programs do not work well enough.
We need to invest more in people, focusing on better tools to help people get jobs and better management to make sure those tools get results.
The green paper suggests a healthy debate around possible directions for reform, making progress more accessible to those who need help, especially people on social assistance and persons with disabilities. We must pay more attention to individual needs, with more assessment and counselling to help each person develop a practical action plan for getting a job.
People come to my constituency office complaining that they have to wait six months before they can see a counsellor, and as a result miss many opportunities.
We should consider giving communities, local business, labour, education and service groups more control over what kinds of programs are used and how they are used.
Another possible direction suggested in the green paper is encouraging more employers to provide training on the job. Why not? We can ensure that institutional training is relevant and effective. We can help people get work experience, for example by offering to supplement their wages if they are hired, or finding opportunities for community work, something we have not stressed enough. We can reduce duplication and waste in programs, with better co-ordination between the federal, provincial and local governments. We must pay more attention to results and help people get jobs and less attention to following rigid bureaucratic rules.
I mentioned as an example someone who came to my office wanting a course which was to begin in a couple of weeks. That course would have led to full time employment. So I said, great, why don't you take it, why don't you apply? He could not because he had to see a counsellor first. I asked him why don't you see the counsellor? The counsellor cannot see this person for six months because of the workload. Another opportunity is lost where someone could have taken a course which would have led to full time employment.
We must have unemployment insurance that makes sense. For too many people the UI program does not work any more. It does not help them get the skills they need for new jobs. It does not help people solve their employment problems. Too often it just makes those problems worse because there is no incentive or support for people to change. Canadians want a better UI program, one that is fair and affordable and helps unemployed people get good long term jobs.
Another constituent complained because she has been working for six years with the same company but it has always been on a part time basis. The employer saves all of the fringe benefits, et cetera. This has to stop.
One way to adjust the system is to make people work longer to qualify for UI or reduce the amount they receive. Or we could shorten the time people could collect UI. That might help but we need more than that. We should look at an entirely new employment insurance program, one that really helps people deal with employment problems. The hon. member mentions a newly-formed party in the past that led to unemployment instead of employment.
The discussion paper outlines one possible approach, a program that targets special help to people who have trouble getting a job. It would have two components; basic insurance and adjustment insurance. Occasional UI claimants, people who face temporary, occasional unemployment would get basic insurance benefits. This would give them income support while they looked for work, much as at the present time. The frequent UI claimants, people who keep having employment problems, would get adjustment insurance benefits. They would get much better help finding a job than they do now through things like better job counselling, training, or opportunities for community work.
Adjustment insurance benefits could depend on a person's willingness to take part in programs that would help them find work. Reformed programs will open more doors through learning. More than ever before the key to security for Canadians is learning. Education, training, skills are the only ticket to a good job.
More Canadians need opportunities for training and education throughout their lives. We all know now that learning is a lifetime process. While the provinces are responsible for education, the federal government plays an important role. But education and training cost money. How can we make sure that individual Canadians can afford the learning they need?
Some options outlined in the green paper include: making more loans and grants available for students; exploring a new form of income contingent repayment of student loans. These loans would be repayable only after a student graduates and enters the workforce. At that point a repayment schedule would be based on the borrower's ability to repay, given his or her income levels.
I am sure many of the members here receive students at their offices who are at a breaking point mentally because the previous government sent out collection agencies to collect the loans that they did not repay. How can they repay the loans if they cannot get a job? That has to change.
Another option is allowing more flexibility in registered retirement savings plans so that people could draw on those savings for lifelong learning. Our goal must be to preserve and broaden access to post-secondary education. A reformed program must provide a fair chance for all Canadians. This is a basic commitment at the heart of our social security reform, to protect those most in need. It is the same policy that we have in our foreign policy, to help those most in need.
That commitment will remain firm but we have got to do a better job. The system is not working despite the fact that spending on welfare and social services has jumped from $2.6 billion to more than $8 billion annually since 1981. Too many Canadian children live in poverty, more children proportionately than any other industrialized country except the U.S.A. Too many parents of those children spend years on welfare even though with the right kind of help they could find work. The problem is we do not give them the help they need.
The source of the problem is the outdated rules of the Canada assistance plan know as CAP. The rules place strict limits on how federal funding through CAP can be used. We have got to start looking at new ideas to help all Canadians get a better chance in life.
For example, how can we make the rules more flexible and put people first, giving the provinces more leeway to design programs that work? How can we start focusing more of our attention on long term solutions like preventing child poverty instead of just tinkering around with short term cures? Should we take some of the money we spend now and use it for special priorities like increasing the child tax benefit for low income families, or giving people on welfare more training and more help finding jobs, or providing more opportunities for people with disabilities so we do not have the incidents such as we saw yesterday on the news?
Many of the ideas behind social security reform are already being put into action here in Ontario through creative partnership agreements between the Ontario and federal governments.
The first of these will create a series of local labour force development boards across the province. The boards will give communities a real voice in training and employment development priority setting. It will give them the chance to put federal and provincial dollars to work on the needs they see around them. Real grassroots planning and action will mean that money is spent where it has the best chance to create results.
Another joint project, Joblink Ontario, will create about a dozen resource centres in communities across the province on a pilot basis. The $25 million that the federal government will contribute this year will match Ontario's contribution. These resource centres will help people on social assistance prepare for and find jobs. It will give them one-stop shopping for training and employment programs for all levels of government and community agencies. It will offer real support to people who can work and who want to work. Through counselling, labour market information and Canada employment centre job listings these people will gain the self-sufficiency they need to escape the welfare trap.
By working together the ideas behind social security reform are already becoming a reality in Ontario, but we cannot stop here. In the past generations of Canadians have risen to the challenge of building a society that cares, that has compassion for the disadvantaged, that supports those in need. This is a challenge each generation must face in turn.
It is now our turn, and I include every member in this Chamber. It is our turn to shape a system that works here on the eve of a new century. We should face this challenge with confidence. We can face this challenge knowing that as a nation our prospects for the future are good.
The federal government is putting in place a comprehensive agenda for economic growth and jobs for Canadians. We can make social security reform an integral part of that agenda. As demonstrated in my town hall meeting of last week Canadians want a better system. By working together we will build a better system.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, our debt is rising at a fantastic rate since this government came into power. Admittedly, some of it would have been the fulfilling of obligations from the previous government. We do not know the number but most likely we have slipped another $40 billion into debt.
I have a question with respect to the speed with which this is coming about. After a year we finally have a discussion paper which we are now supposed to start talking about. Canadians were already talking about it before the last election. By now I would have liked to have seen a good system of cost analysis with options on these different programs so that we could begin making choices and start making the necessary cuts in order to prevent us from sliding into debt so deeply that we will never get out.
I would like the member's comment on the whole question of speed and urgency with respect to this debate that is going on.
Jesse Flis Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I get the same question from many constituents: Why is it taking so long? Why not do it tomorrow?
If you want a true consultative process, if you honestly want to get input from the grassroots Canadians it will be a slower process. By listening to Canadians you have to determine what programs are of highest priority, what programs are of the least priority. Then as a government jointly with all parties in opposition we have to decide which programs we must continue funding and which programs can be dropped. Then we have to see what kind of resources, how many public service personnel we need to match those programs and what kind of financial resources we need to match those programs.
We lead the public astray when we complain we are not moving fast enough. We are moving very quickly when you consider the kind of input that the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and individual members from all three parties are getting through town hall meetings. I think we are moving fairly quickly.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a follow up comment and question to try to determine the member's motivation for the social policy review.
He mentions in his opening remarks the reason the review is necessary is that the programs are not working properly for Canadians any more. Other people would argue that a financial motivation is actually driving it. The agenda is being driven because we must change because we cannot foot the bills.
In his opinion which is the case? Is it the case that we must change because we are going to go over the waterfall that another member mentioned earlier today? Or is it because they are not just working well? I am wondering which is the priority.
