House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was need.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I had planned to recognize the hon. member for Jonquière next, but since his comment was of a rather personal nature, in my opinion, I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Rosemont.
Benoît Tremblay Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add that, were the minister and his government to decide to act immediately to remedy those faults, they would have my support and I think that all my constituents would agree with me entirely.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his presentation. As a high school guidance counsellor, I was for many years in a position to meet workers who wanted to receive some occupational training and who had to wrestle with unemployment insurance rules. And I would have liked to say exactly what my hon. colleague said, that is denounce the fact that some people today are not receiving training because Canadian training policies are inadequate.
In addition to congratulating my colleague, I would like to ask him a question. Why must all of these programs be standardized across Canada? Why could the Government of Quebec not oversee occupational training, as labour unions and management are demanding? In fact, Quebec stakeholders are unanimous in calling for all of these programs to be administered by the Quebec government. Why is this not possible at the present time?
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the case with Unemployment Insurance. My colleague opposite should know, if he worked in that field, that welfare recipients are confronted with the same kind of problems. So, it does not happen only with federal programs. In fact, as we speak, the problems facing welfare recipients may well be worse.
Now, the member opposite is asking me: would it not be possible for certain programs to be administered by a single level of government instead of two? It is certainly not impossible, and no one said it was. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated clearly that he was planning and had in fact started negotiations along that line. So, it is far from impossible to negotiate successfully with provincial officials and it is not fair to say that the programs are the same-
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. The time allotted for questions and comments period has run out.
Marlene Catterall LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the subject of reform of our social programs.
I have had the great privilege over many years in my community as a volunteer, as an elected representative municipally and as an elected representative federally to work with people in my community to try to resolve some of these problems and to agonize with them about the frustration of programs, rules and regulations that do not allow people to take the steps they want to take to become self-sufficient and to create a better life for themselves and their children.
As I begin speaking today, I want to pay special tribute to many of the women I have worked with over the years. I have found tremendous strength among women living in poverty trying to raise their children and trying to plan to get out of that poverty trap to create new opportunities for themselves and their children only to butt themselves up against a system that makes it hard for them to do that.
The fundamental principle of liberalism is the dignity and worth of every individual. Canadians heard the Prime Minister and Liberal candidates across the country speak on that theme time and time again. It is central to the red book and to the economic and social programs that we put forward in the red book and that we are all now intending to implement through this Parliament.
However, believing in the dignity and worth of every individual also means making sure that as a society we create the opportunities for every individual to achieve their full potential and to use that to their personal benefit, to the benefit of their family, friends, community and country. Far too much inhibits that now.
I had the privilege of attending the pre-budget consultation in Toronto last week and hearing a speech by a former deputy minister of this government, Arthur Kroeger, in which he talked about the rising benchmark of unemployment that has been set in each decade of the last half of this century, rising from approximately 4 per cent in the fifties to over 6 per cent in the sixties to plus 9 per cent in the seventies and to 10 per cent to 11 per cent in the eighties. It obviously seems stuck at that point for the moment.
What has also happened is that the middle class has disappeared into a economic polarization of our society. Some people have moved up into higher paying, more secure, more skilled jobs, and more have moved down into less skilled, lower paying jobs and that bottom level seems to be declining.
I have also had the privilege recently of reading a publication called "The Canadian Women's Budget" which talks about how the policies of the previous government over the last five years have further exacerbated that polarization of Canadians. A family of two parents earning $20,000 a year, a pretty low income we would all agree with two children, is now paying more than three times the taxes it did. A middle income family is paying 15 per cent more and the wealthiest Canadians are paying less than 4 per cent more.
As I look at the need to be frugal, to make the best use of the fiscal resources we have, to move toward a balanced budget, I also want to move toward balance in the budget and who is benefiting from the kinds of programs we have and who is being left on the sidelines in an increasingly harsh world.
The poverty of children in our society is one of those things that perpetuates a poorer and poorer society and fewer and fewer opportunities for people to develop their talents, their abilities and their skills and make the contribution they want to make and are capable of making.
We know that children growing up in poverty are more likely to drop out of school, more likely to be illiterate, more likely to get sick, more likely to commit suicide. Poverty is a fundamental issue that we as a society are not addressing.
I mentioned that I have dealt with poor women, single parents, trying to raise their children, trying to create a better opportunity for themselves. There is no scheme for them to gradually move from dependency to independence. They are punished if they try to. They lose benefits that are essential to the security of their children.
I am a woman who has raised three children. Most of the women I have worked with will sacrifice their own dignity for the sake of the security of their children. We have to make sure that we are not forcing them to make that choice.
We know that more women than men are poor. We have to ask ourselves how we have allocated our resources in the past as a society so that has happened, so that there is a segment of our society consistently poorer and significantly poorer than society at large. It has not happened by accident, it has happened by specific policy decisions. What is there in our social programs and in other programs of government that has allowed that to happen, and in fact that has led to it happen?
I want to talk about the need to look at special needs in our society. In the last government a project sat on the desk of the minister of employment that for $26,000 a person would have taken people with disabilities and trained them to work in the high tech industry in which there is a desperate need for people with the skills that this particular group of unemployed would have been given. The government sat there and did not move on that project.
I have been involved with training programs. I see how desperately they are needed and wanted in communities. I talk about a restaurant that a community group actually started as a business so it could use that business and re-invest the income from that business in training. I can count in the hundreds for a very small investment of federal dollars the young men and women who have come through that program, who have established careers for themselves, who have turned their lives around completely.
I want to talk about something we learned through those kinds of programs. I hope this review goes to some of the fundamental
causes of why young people end up uneducated or undereducated, unemployed or underemployed and unable to integrate themselves into society at large and into the work force.
What we found in common with other similar projects across Ontario was that when we dealt with young people who met these criteria of less than grade 10 education, out of work at least six months, very little job experience to speak of, we were dealing with a large component, over 80 per cent of children who came from a history of sexual abuse.
Until we start addressing those fundamental issues of why our children leave school, why they never quite make it in society, we are not going to solve those problems.
I welcome this comprehensive review. I want to see us be more frugal with our money. I do not want to leave my three children a horrendous debt. Nor do I want to leave them a meaner, nastier society than I have enjoyed.
I welcome this reform. I hope it will do some positive things for a lot of Canadians.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for an interesting speech.
The member shows great concern for people caught in the poverty trap and that is exactly what all of us have a concern for here. I would like to ask the member a question. I wonder if the member is familiar with a program that has been running in New York state which has saved the taxpayers about $21 million over the last few years while at the same time finding positions for people who have been on the welfare roles for a number of years.
The project involves a private company and it is involved in training with a different perspective. Instead of trying to teach new skills, and I do not deny there are times when these new skills are needed, what it does is search for and develop the skills that are already there, however basic they are.
Then it teaches how to search for a suitable job and it helps the person go to the interview and it does the follow up and eventually when the person is placed it does the follow up to make sure the person stays in the job.
After nine months of continuous employment the private company that did the training is paid about $5,000 for having placed the person.
As I said earlier that has saved about $21 million for the taxpayers over the last few years.
I would like to know if the member would agree that type of program could be useful in Canada, because about 85 per cent of the people placed are still in the same job after one year. It has a very high success rate.
This seems to be a way to save tax dollars while at the same time helping people get out of that welfare rut.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go to the United States to find examples of good employment programs and good training programs with equal success rates. I find them in my own community and I find them having been started by people in the community who understand our needs, who understand the resources of their community that they can bring to bear.
There is room for a mix of public and private sector involvement as we address these issues as there is in programs in Canada and in my own community. However, I think we need to be cautious of one thing. It is very easy to have a higher success rate in one program if one is very selective about who one chooses and if one chooses only those people who are going to succeed. There are some people who are a much greater challenge whom the private sector, being interested in making the greatest possible profit in the least possible time, might not choose to work with.
For instance, I mentioned young people with a history that has lead them to have fewer opportunities. I mentioned women, many of whom were married at a very young age, who became mothers at a very young age, became single parents at a very young age when their partner left them. Those women not only need specific training, development of skills they have, development of new skills, but they need to develop a whole new level of confidence in themselves and belief that they can make a difference in their own lives.
That does not lead to a lot of profits but it leads to a lot of opportunities.
René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my hon. colleague. She is full of good intentions. It is true that there is a substantial wage differential between men and women. When you talk about youth issues, it also concerns me directly. Except that the hon. member said: "We want to do something, but we are not sure what". There are things you can do when you are in office.
In my riding, youth unemployment has reached 50 per cent, not 30 per cent but 50 per cent. In my riding, there are no universities. This means that we are continually experiencing a brain drain. And those who leave do not come back. You are very sensitive to that problem and you are full of good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So-
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Your time is almost up. I will recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some people, in some areas, are facing much more serious problems than my constituents.
Indeed, solutions are urgently needed, but when you make profound changes, you must make sure that they are done well, that they will not only remedy the problem for a week or a month but provide a long-term solution.
I am sure that the people concerned have good ideas to suggest and that we will make a better decision if we listen to them.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my parents, my family, the constituents of my riding of Lotbinière and all those who have worked directly or indirectly to help me get elected. Thank you.
If I may, I would like to start my maiden speech by briefly describing the beautiful riding of Lotbinière that I am proud to represent. Flanked by the St. Lawrence River to the north, it includes more than 50 communities with a total population of 94,315.
The largest community is the recently merged city of Victoriaville-Arthabasca which is home to almost 40,000 people. Victoriaville-Arthabasca is the third most industrialized city, per capita, in Quebec with close to 200 industries. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's house overlooks the city, where the Susor-Côté family, Henri d'Arles and other famous people were born.
The riding I represent offers many tourist attractions such as the Lapierre mill in Norbertville, the Portage mill in Lotbinière, the Bergeron plant in Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, not to mention the region's numerous covered bridges, historic homes and churches.
For a period of about ten years, the riding of Lotbinière was represented in the House of Commons by the late André Fortin. Mr. Fortin had a reputation for working tirelessly and with unsurpassed vigour to defend the interests of his constituents. I humbly hope that I can be worthy of that former member of Parliament who achieved big things in this riding. If serving the population means being a good member of Parliament, this is what I intend to do.
I rise today to urge the Liberal government to think twice before slashing social programs. Despite being optimistic by nature, I must admit that rural regions such as mine are faced with growing poverty.
According to Statistics Canada, 4,680 men and women aged 15 and over collected unemployment insurance in 1991 in the riding of Lotbinière, and this number has not improved with the recession we have been through. Three years ago, unemployment stood at 11 per cent of a labour force of 45,800. Add those on welfare and much of the population will be affected by the measures which the government intends to take.
The reason I refer to my region is that, like other rural regions, it is in danger of suffering unduly from an ill-considered reform of social programs. We are trying to get our head above water and we fear that the Liberal government will put its hand on our head and make us sink further. The regions are already in trouble compared to the major centres. I certainly do not want to sound alarmist, but if we go by the social development report published by Quebec's Conseil des affaires sociales, we must admit that Quebec is split in two. Indeed, in the first report published in January 1989, we see an analysis of 25 regional county municipalities along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, showing a decrease or no increase in population for 18 of them between 1981 and 1986.
Of course, the exodus of our young people to major centres has a lot to do with it. Why do young people leave their home regions? Employment is their very legitimate reason. It is a vicious circle because the higher the jobless rate in a community, the more young people tend to leave it, as we can read in the report of the Conseil des affaires sociales. For want of economic and social opportunities, our young adults move to the big cities, leaving behind an aging population which for that very reason is more dependent on the state.
There are two Quebecs, one young and prosperous, the other aging and poor. That is the situation in Quebec now, and it is no doubt the same in other provinces of Canada. Even though feelings of attachment remain strong in rural regions like Lotbinière, Charlevoix, Matapédia and Lac-Saint-Jean, the centralization of government services in cities identified as regional capitals obliges the people in the regions to travel to obtain services.
Another example, taken from the report of the Conseil des affaires sociales published in 1990, shows that technical options are not being offered in regional high schools but rather in larger centres. Therefore many fifteen-year-olds go to the city not only to study but also in the hope of finding work. For example, Statistics Canada reported that nearly 35 per cent of the population in my riding was at least 40 years old in 1991.
The Minister of Human Resource Development said this week that he wanted the reform of social programs to create hope and to end dependency, especially by creating jobs. I would love to believe the minister, but nothing in his speech tells us how those jobs will be created. Where is the hope for the people of the rural regions I just mentioned? Their hope now lies in the help they receive from social programs, imperfect as these may be. The government will pay its debt with money taken from social services, forcing the provinces to raise taxes again and putting the federal government in a good light. There is more and more discontent in the regions and I hope that the minister is aware of the situation.
Before concluding, I would like to quote Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir , who wrote these lines in the issue of Tuesday, February 1, 1994:
-the operation also serves as a disguise to a final assault by the federal government, which has been trying since the middle of the century to appropriate provincial fields of jurisdiction enshrined in the Constitution, namely social programs, education, and now labour relations.
It is possible to modify some programs without adversely affecting the have-nots. It is possible to prosper in a regional environment, as is demonstrated by Cascades. But for that to happen, the government must act responsibly. In the past three weeks, I have been receiving phone calls from poor people in my riding. Their first question is invariably: Will the government make cuts in the social programs? I would appreciate it if, one day, the government opposite would tell us precisely and honestly what it will do and where it will make those cuts. Canadians need to be reassured. We must not wait until the poor come and voice their discontentment here, in front of Parliament. We must not wait until then. I will tell you one thing: if it comes to that, I will side with the poor.
Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I congratulate him on it, but I have a couple of questions and a couple of concerns.
I am not absolutely certain but I think I heard him indicate that he was relegating his riding to surviving simply on social assistance, that was to be the mainstay of his riding's economy. I cannot see that as a viable long term solution for his riding.
My riding suffers from high unemployment as well. I come from a rural area with a number of communities. Although we see the importance of social programs to help us through difficult times, we see economic development and the pursuit of rebuilding the economy and creating new jobs as being the long term solution, not simply social programs.
My second observation is that there seemed to be a great amount of concern among the needy of his riding, as he described them, as to from what level of government the assistance comes. It has been my experience when dealing with individuals who are in need of government assistance that their primary concern is that they receive the assistance. They do not much care about a battle between different levels of government getting in the way of the assistance getting to them.
I thought the member might like to comment on those two points.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member opposite. In the case of social programs, I think we must bring in a reform when the economy is going strong and not when it is down. Let me also add that in the case of the unemployment insurance reform, that is Bill C-113, the government penalized 99 per cent of the population simply to catch the one per cent of abusers. In a family such as Canada, of which Quebec is a full member, you must not resort to such measures and hurt the vast majority just to get at a very small number of individuals. You make reforms when the economy is strong, not when it is in difficulty. The recession which we have been going through since the early nineties is a good illustration of my point.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, western society, that some see as an advanced society, maintains certain values on which is based the principle of equality among individuals. These values can be summed up as the right to health, education, work and personal respect.
These values have long been recognized as essential by Quebec society and by Canadian society. People here have agreed to assume their responsibilities by providing everyone with health, social and educational services whose quality we can only be proud of.
In his motion to the House earlier this week, the Minister of Human Resources Development considers broad consultations to modernize and restructure Canada's social security system, "with particular reference to the needs of families with children, youth and working age adults".
In his statement, the minister assures the Canadian population that, far from wanting to make our social security system less efficient, he wants to improve it. The minister could not be more explicit. We must ensure, he said, that the system continues to offer basic security to all those in need.
What worries me is that there are more and more people in need in this country. Where should we draw the line? Can we draw a line without endangering the principles of universality and accessibility?
If I may, I would like to remind the House that one out of five Quebecers lives below the poverty line; it is easier to identify the groups that are not affected than those who are.
In Canada, one child out of six is poor. If the children are poor, it means that their families are poor. They are not able to offer the living conditions essential to the development of children. It
must be pointed out, however, that this situation is not the parents' fault but results for the most part from economic hard times and the current climate of government indifference.
Being poor means being hungry, being cold, being unable to concentrate in class, being sick more often than others; it often means having lost hope, living with violence, addictions and despair.
Some say that the government is on the brink of bankruptcy. Everyone agrees that it is imperative to reduce the deficit. However, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that the measures advocated will have no negative effects on the disadvantaged. These measures should primarily be designed to improve socioeconomic conditions for those in need. To launch a real effort to put its fiscal house in order, the government must concentrate on its operating costs and on defence spending.
It is only during an election campaign that we dare to propose miracle solutions to balance budgets with such large deficits. No one in this House is fooled, let alone the citizens of Quebec. The government must resist the temptation to cut social programs and service delivery.
The minister of human resources tries to reassure us by saying that under the system, basic security will be extended to all those in need. However, the services that are available right now to help those wishing to escape difficult circumstances and improve their lot in life are already inadequate. The government must devise a strategy to beef up social programs and services while bearing in mind the financial ability of the provinces, and of course Quebec, to pay and scrupulously upholding the principle of program accessibility and universality.
Substantial cuts in recent years in federal transfer payments for health care have considerably increased the tax burden of the provinces and of Quebec. Public concern over possible cuts in federal social housing subsidies has left us fearful that this government is no longer seeking the path to reform, but has already found it.
The official opposition will never agree to allowing this government to get a handle on the deficit by strangling society's less fortunate members. Curbing the deficit by cutting social security is unacceptable in a society that for many decades has defined itself as just and fair, a good place to live.
Quebec has long been demanding, and with good reason, an end to overlap, duplication and federal government encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially health care and education.
Quebecers and Canadians have long been calling for a healthier, more streamlined government machine. Eliminating the additional expenditures resulting from program overlap would be another step forward in the process of putting our public finances in order.
The consultation process launched this week is important. The stakes are high and this government cannot afford to misdiagnose the problem and, especially, to prescribe the wrong medicine.
I am proud to be a member of the nursing profession and recently, the Association des infirmiers et des infirmières compared the cost of health care in Canada with costs in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and Sweden. It would appear that health care costs are higher here than anywhere else. But, is our health care system any better for it? Would our services suffer if we were to identify the reason for these cost disparities?
Nurses are in favour of maintaining the quality of health care in this country. By listening to their expertise, perhaps we can come up with ways of using all of our health care system's resources more intelligently.
Like all modern societies, Quebec want to control its growth and confront the future in a dynamic, responsible manner. The outcome of this debate must not impede the attainment of this objective.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Peterborough on questions or comments.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I was standing here because my colleague had placed his brief case in my seat. If there is something of interest that you would like me to say, could you give me a topic and I could begin.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
We will not see that member for a long time in the future.
Is the member for London-Middlesex standing because he wants to do some other thing or ask questions?
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I really did mean to stand. I appreciate you giving me the floor.
We have now heard the last two speakers from the Bloc praising and extolling profusely the health care system of Canada. How great it is to hear that praise.
Then I have to remind myself that this is the party whose whole raison d'être seems to be to break up this country. I have a problem reconciling that effusive praise for our social services system with what is their political goal.
That leads me to my question. There seems to be a prejudging of the consultation process that the minister of human resources seems intent on starting throughout this country which is a very necessary consultative process. Could the member explain to us
why it is that the Bloc members seem to want to prejudge the consultation and why they do not seem to want to have the people of Quebec as part of this consultative process.
Maybe she can reconcile the irreconcilable of why they want to break up such a wonderful nation with such a great system.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I must remind the hon. member that she has four minutes left to conclude her speech.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that I will make good use of those four minutes to answer the hon. member for London-Middlesex.
First, I thank him for taking the time to listen to me. He deserves credit for being still here at 6 p.m. on a Thursday evening.
The hon. member says he asked me two questions. Unfortunately, I believe he asked only one question because he first said that the Bloc Quebecois wants to destroy this magnificent country. His only question was: Why do we want to destroy this magnificent country since we, of course, recognize that the social security services which exist here, especially since the end of the Second World War, are services which we can be proud of.
Canada is indeed a great country, but it is so great that, somehow, Quebecers feel a little removed from it. Unfortunately, we are different; we have different values which are important to us and, like Canadians, we respect people. Indeed, Quebecers, like Canadians, truly respect the importance of people's health; the difference is that Quebec was able to innovate and break new ground in all kinds of areas. Let me give you two examples. I believe Quebec was the first province to introduce maternity benefits or childbirth grants. Quebec's way of looking at things is slightly different and this is what makes a society rich and special.
What the Bloc Quebecois wants, along with a great number of Quebecers, is to create a new state which will be able to have equal and active relations with its neighbours. I should add that we will be very happy to have Canada as our neighbour, because it is a great country which we respect, and we will also be very happy to have the United States as our neighbour.
I hope that answers the question of the hon. member for London-Middlesex.
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport
I wanted to put a question to the hon. member. I listened to her speech; she talked about the deficit and Canada's financial problem. I simply wanted to ask her if she had discussed these issues with her colleagues since they have a certain experience with those problems which certainly existed prior to October 25.
I was wondering for example if the hon. member had talked to the member for Saint-Hubert, the members for Richelieu, Longueuil and Rosemont and most of all, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean because these people have a vast experience and were part of the government at a time when all those problems were very obvious for all Canadian taxpayers.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, as time is running short and you were in the country in those days, perhaps you could answer the hon. member's question.
Of course it is important to reduce the deficit, but we must cut where it is logical to do so. It is logical to trim the fat first and for the time being, there are still a lot of areas where we can trim some fat.
You know, in my kitchen, if I throw away some milk because it went sour, I am wasting it. Well, in this great and wealthy country of ours, I think there is still some waste. It is a collective as well as an individual responsibility and members of this House, of this government, who should serve as models, must set an example. I hope I have answered your question.
Jean Augustine LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate on the motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development because it is one which will deeply affect the people of my riding and deeply affect all Canadians.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore has fallen on hard times recently. Many of our industries have packed up and left town leaving empty plants and office spaces and many unemployed people in their wake.
We have people capable of providing highly technical knowledge but with little infrastructure for support. The youth in my riding are facing an ever bleak future and it seems that no matter what their training is there are no jobs for them. There are many seniors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who are living on the edge of poverty and they are all concerned about the quality of life they will have in their remaining days.
My constituents and all Canadians are in a state of despair. They are having a hard time not only finding but keeping their jobs. Many who have jobs are underemployed or work only part time and intermittently.
During the campaign I promised and I committed according to the red book. I committed together with all the members of the Liberal Party who were campaigning at the time that we would invest in people; that we would help individuals to make better choices for themselves and for their families; and, that we would help individuals to establish new ways of participating in a social and economic structure that would make a difference for them.
We talked about rebuilding the security system, offering employment, offering hope, creating a more productive economy through better use of human resources, their skills, their talents and their abilities. We also spoke about education reforms, about our young people and the way in which we would have to prepare our young for the future ahead of them.
This despair is felt; and this minister's commitment to a review of the system is exactly what we need to do. We want to ensure that our children are well trained and educated and we want jobs for ourselves and for our future.
We recognize the contribution of senior Canadians. They spent their lives working to make a better place to live. They contributed to the development and funding of social programs. They should be able to live in security and enjoy retirement. The Canada pension plan, old age security, and guaranteed income supplement are meant to contribute to their security. These programs are no longer working as they were meant to.
By the year 2020 it is predicted that 20 per cent of our population will be seniors. Maybe many hon. members will be in that category. If we do not work on these programs now there will be no support for those Canadians then.
There is really one course of action. That is to involve Canadians in a full review of the system, a review that includes unemployment insurance, social assistance, training, education, looking at our young people, looking at our children and families or single and lone parent families, and all those who are presently experiencing difficulty in the system.
We must involve all Canadians in this dialogue. We must involve as many Canadians as possible because these programs affect each and every one of us from the cradle to the grave. We each have an interest, a shared concern in the system, because we are all stakeholders. This is why we have embarked on this.
The hon. members of the Official Opposition would have us believe that what we are about to do is what the Tories did: slash, burn, and cut and somehow walk away from the realities of the lives of the people we are here to serve.
The Liberal Party founded most of today's social programs. These programs were designed for a different time but they were based on the same values which we hold dear today. They were based on the beliefs that each and every Canadian has a right to live with dignity, that each and every Canadian should be able to earn his or her own living. They were based on the knowledge that we do not all have equal opportunities in life and that we should work to ensure a certain standard of living for all. That includes unemployment insurance for those encountering difficulties in the workplace, social assistance for those facing poverty, and a pension plan for those in their senior years.
We want to protect those values. We want to ensure those values continue to exist in our social security system. We can only do so with a comprehensive review such as the minister has proposed.
I commend him for this ambitious plan and encourage all members of this House to work and to work steadfastly to ensure that we provide the environment and the kind of security that is needed in our country.
I extend my own support and pledge I will do everything in my capacity to ensure that the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and all Canadians participate in this endeavour.
We have recommitted through the red book that this must be done to ensure that our commitment is met.