Debates of Feb. 3rd, 1994

Social Security System

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted by the comments of the hon. member.

What I am about to say is not a challenge to the member in the least. She made a statement about lumping social policy and economics together. Indeed they are an interdependent coupling.

My concern is the rhetorical piece that is the red book for me does not have the economic elements within it that satisfy what we must do for Canadians to get them back to work.

My daughter is 22 years old and does not have a job, although she has a university education. She says: "Mom, please do not come back home and say you can do nothing". It is the rhetoric that is my concern. If we are going to co-operate it is incumbent upon us to look at economic policies and marry that with social policy. That is how I hope we can co-operate in this House.

In my view the debate has helped to push us along that path.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the hon. member and I have much in common. I have a 25 year old who has a university education and not able to find work either. We have all come here with the same bottom line. We are all looking for the same things.

I do take exception to the fact that the hon. member said the red book is long on rhetoric. The red book is very long on specifics. These are the plans of action into which we are now moving. The immigration plan is clearly set out the red book; our economy plan is clearly set out in the red book and our social policy is clearly set out the red book.

She has asked that we marry the two and look at a way to bring them together. That is precisely what this motion speaks to.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reading, writing and understanding even a very simple text is still a problem for many of our fellow citizens. The problem is even worse for the illiterate and has a negative impact on the development of our society as a whole. In my speech I would like to expand on the various aspects of this problem.

In this country, one adult out of four can neither read nor write sufficiently well to meet the requirements of daily life. It may seem hard to understand that in 1994, this kind of problem exists, even among young people, since schooling has been compulsory for more than 50 years. In fact, today, a whole generation is paying the price of the school reforms that took place in the 60s.

However, schools are not the only culprits. The current trend towards family dislocation is also to blame. Well-known authors have stressed the major impact of the family environment on the child's ability to learn to read and write.

Finally, the private sector has not played the role assumed by its counterparts in other industrialized countries. Seventy-six per cent of Canadian businesses with more than 50 employees in Canada have no policy for training human resources.

And last but not least, there is the federal government's responsibility regarding the high rate of illiteracy in Canada.

I would like to start by commenting on the negative impact of federal involvement in this area.

I condemn the almost inevitable inefficiency of a policy where responsibilities and resources must be shared, discussed and fought over by two levels of government: one which has legal jurisdiction over this area, in other words, the provinces, and the other which for years has insisted on invading this area of responsibility in a totally illogical way which also has been very detrimental to our financial resources. This is typical of the federal government.

Ottawa's failure to support literacy in this country includes the poor allocation of federal resources as a result of jurisdictional overlap.

The hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually as a result of this overlap could have been used, for instance, to create a pre-school network similar to those that exist in many western countries. The positive correlation between early socialization of children and academic achievement has been stressed repeatedly. As the Deputy Prime Minister said last Tuesday, the years between zero and five are critical.

With the money saved, Quebec, if it had a free hand, would have been better able to help organizations engaged in literacy training and occupational training.

In my own riding, for instance, we have a regional adult education and occupational training service provided by the Sainte-Thérèse, Deux-Montagnes et Saint-Eustache school boards. Their budget has just been cut by 13 per cent, despite the magnificent job they are doing.

Changes in the family structure, as I said before, are also responsible for illiteracy. But does Ottawa do enough to adapt to these new structures? To working mothers? To single-parent families? What is the federal government doing to create a genuine daycare network, as an alternative to pre-school establishments? The private sector is not doing enough? That is pretty obvious. But is there not a case for giving them better incentives to do their share in retraining manpower?

In any case, looking for scapegoats is not going to solve the problem. It is high time to put in place what is needed to fight illiteracy.

Need we recall why action is urgently needed; and why illiteracy is a scourge? First of all, illiteracy cuts people off from their culture. That is clear. Knowing how to read and write is the

key everyone needs to open that door, and the illiterate person who does not have that key cannot enter that world.

Second, there are the practical requirements of daily life in our society which include a minimum knowledge of reading and writing. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue, and it is too bad he is not here, would be very upset if we were not capable of completing our income tax returns and then writing him a cheque. You have to be able to read and write to do that. We also have to be able to read our contracts, bills, and so forth. Need I go on?

Finally, and this is a particularly urgent question today, there is the matter of getting a job. Illiteracy has always been a handicap in this respect. It has barred individuals from the better jobs. Today, the consequences are far worse. In today's society, occupational skills, including literacy, are no longer a guarantee for getting a good job. They are an absolute requirement for any job at all.

Two-thirds of the jobs created by the year 2000 will require at least grade twelve. This means that illiteracy wastes part of our human resources. It undermines our economic development and diminishes our competitive position vis-à-vis countries that are more concerned than we are about the training of their labour force.

In accounting terms, providing sufficient funding to fight illiteracy today is a good investment for the government because it means fewer welfare recipients and a broader tax base tomorrow.

To get a maximum return on this investment, how it is used should be determined locally. Aside from the fact that it is pretty useless to have an army of officials in Ottawa make general, high-sounding statements, it also does not make sense and it is counterproductive in the extreme to claim there should be common standards for a literacy policy from coast to coast, for Canada and Quebec.

Who could claim, unless it is for partisan reasons, that it is not in Quebec, with its distinct culture, that such a policy should be implemented if we are looking for efficiency and not electoral visibility for the federal government.

The best way to avoid overlapping is for the federal government to withdraw from that field. To come closer to that ideal situation, Quebec and Ottawa should at least sign that agreement giving Quebec control in that area.

To conclude, I would like to congratulate the hon. Deputy Prime Minister for the pathetic plea for the unemployed she made on Monday. She said that our society was sick with unemployment and that one of the causes of the disease was the lack of training of part of the population. I agree with that, but what I do not agree with is the method she proposes to find and then apply the treatment capable of curing society of unemployment.

For Quebec, she says, the disease could be beaten if the two doctors, Quebec and Ottawa, would stop quarrelling, would agree on a treatment and would apply it together. Ever since Molière wrote his play, we know what happens when one or more physicians are called to the bedside of a patient: the fees are high and the funeral director is never far behind.

What we propose is that the Ottawa doctor leave promptly, before it is too late, and leave the patient in the hands of his Quebec colleague who, being closer to the patient, is in a better position to treat him efficiently.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the remarks of the hon. member. I want to make one observation.

I believe that education is within provincial jurisdiction in Canada. I would have thought to some degree the problems in education that pertain to illiteracy and difficulties in reading have to do with the quality of instruction at the provincial level whether it be in Quebec, Ontario or any other province.

Therefore I ask the hon. member if he supports national standards in education as a way to confront this problem?

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the question that was just asked is extremely interesting. Would it be appropriate to have common standards? And I presume that the hon. member is wondering whether it would be useful to have the same education standards from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

My answer is no. Of course, there are some common principles but, as I was saying, beyond the virtuous general statements to the effect that education must be aimed at educating and that the language must be good and so on, I do no see the need for Vancouver and Quebec to have the same objectives. I am still saying that it is not necessary for Quebec's education goals to be established in Ottawa.

[Gaston Péloquin, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first official speech in this House, I would like, with your permission, to congratulate all members on their election and congratulate you on your appointment to this responsible position.

I would also like to thank the voters of Brome-Missisquoi from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me and electing me as their representative. Brome-Missisquoi is a lovely riding in Quebec's Eastern Townships. It has both an urban and a rural mix and tourism, farming and industry are the dominant areas of activity.

The Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification has informed us that he intends to hold broad public consultations on social program reform. The government has given itself two years to review social programs and make changes in a manner which, as it promised repeatedly during the election campaign, takes into account the concerns of the people.

Many Quebecers and Canadians are afraid of what the government has in mind for social programs. They are afraid that the government, under the pretext of getting public finances in order, will slash the only social safety net they have.

The upcoming social program review scares many disadvantaged people and those who are suffering because of the sluggish economic recovery. It scares unemployed persons, welfare recipients, low and middle income families, senior citizens and, of course, disabled persons.

All of these people are currently facing a great deal of uncertainty as to the availability of quality occupational training to help them integrate the labour force and gain access to the health care and social services they desperately need.

According to the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec , in 1986, there were ten times as many disabled persons living in a residential setting as there were disabled persons in an institutional setting. More than one third of the population over the age of 75 is considered disabled and overall, there are more women than men who are disabled.

The challenge facing the government is, therefore, complex. On one hand, all Quebecers and Canadians want the government to tackle the employment problem. Citizens who want to use their skills and experience to make a contribution to society find nothing noble about unemployment and welfare. Finding work is a priority for disabled persons, particularly for those not confined to an institution because of their disability.

Disabled persons often encounter obstacles such as discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. Yet, many disabled persons are highly qualified and functional. Why not call upon these individuals who want to participate in the economic development and modernization of Quebec and Canada.

Disabled persons also face problems in other areas such as training, transportation, communications and housing, areas in which most Canadians take fairness for granted.

Most of these areas come under provincial jurisdiction and we believe that the federal government has no business interfering any more than it now does in such matters. We think that the money allocated by the federal government to these programs for the handicapped must be transferred to the provinces, which are a lot closer to the needs of their population.

We think there is an increasingly urgent need for Quebec to create institutions that unite us, based on our needs and not on standards imposed by the rest of Canada that do not always take into account our economic, cultural and social situation. The duplication and overlap problem is costly and so complex that the average person is easily lost. The competition among governments on service quantity but not quality has resulted in waste, the rule being that the federal government takes up as much room as possible without regard for costs.

Cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for health care may translate into budget cuts in home-care and rehabilitation centers.

Quebec and the other provinces will be forced to slash their health care services. The government must not be allowed to make the provinces bear the burden of its deficit and shoulder the blame for these cuts.

The lack of funds in the health care system affects non only the availability of occupational therapy and physiotherapy services but also the home support program for people with disabilities.

Are we to think that cuts to social programs will lead to a reduction in efforts to make public buildings accessible to people using wheelchairs since, as the humorist Jean-Marc Parent was saying, there are always doors that open on the wrong side and 90 degree access ramps?

Despite their significant presence in our society, there is still too little research on the social integration of people with handicaps or functional disabilities. While we are scraping the bottom of the barrel to offer concrete and direct services to the population, can we afford to have two of everything? In 1993-94, the overall administration of federal and provincial health and welfare programs accounts for over $150 million and more than 1,500 full-time jobs.

Can we afford to duplicate initiatives aimed at target groups with occasionally conflicting priorities? These are areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and the federal government is merely trying to raise its political profile.

In 1991, only $46 million was spent on programs for the handicapped over five years or a little over $9 million a year. According to Statistics Canada, between 12 and 13 per cent of Canadians have various disabilities; it may be a mobility impairment, a vision, hearing or speech problem, an intellectual deficiency or a mental illness. As the figures clearly show, the time and energy spent on duplicating programs for the handicapped are not only costing us a lot of money but also lowering

the quality of services offered to these people. This is further evidence that Quebec's sovereignty is the only valid solution to this administrative nightmare.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Sir, may I offer my congratulations on your attaining the position of Deputy Speaker.

The minister's initiative in the area of social services is certainly much overdue and much needed in this country and gives us all cause as Canadians for serious reflection about what really is the role of government, or what ought to be the role of government in our society as we move toward the 21st century.

A conservative would have us believe that government should do very little, that really everything should be left to the marketplace, that just like business and the market take care of everything and those who earn, wealth will trickle down to those who do not have such wealth and that everything will be wonderful in our society; so-called Reaganomics, if you will, or the path followed by Margaret Thatcher and by the previous government in this House.

It is quite obvious that such an approach to government in society has been a miserable failure. Never has the gap between those at the top, those who have, and those at the bottom widened more significantly in such a few short years as it did in the 1980s in North America and in Britain and other parts of the world.

It is quite obvious that the conservative philosophy is quite bankrupt as we move toward the end of this century and the start of a new era.

On the other hand, we have the socialist philosophy that government should do everything for us. It should take care of us from the cradle to the grave. There is very little that the citizen should have to do. Let government do it all. That has been tried in different parts of the world with very limited successes, producing such an incredible tax burden on countries that they have had to totally rethink the way their society is structured. It has produced a paternalistic society in which all too often the initiative of the individual is stifled almost completely to the point at which they simply feel that they are a ward of the state.

Between these two extremes of the far right and the far left you have what I feel, and history has proven it to be the sensible position, is the position of a liberal; a far more balanced position, founded on the ideas of some of the greatest thinkers of political science in history.

A liberal view espouses the fact that there is a social contract or that there ought to be in a society a social contract between the citizen and the state, that the state is there and gains power through the actions of the citizenry in giving that power temporarily to the state. The duty of government is to assist the citizen to realize his or her full potentials, then to work in partnership with the private sector and to let that citizen and the private sector work together for job employment, job creation and so on. To a large extent it is the private sector which will help to foster employment in a society.

A liberal rejects the notion that there is no role for government to play whatsoever. That is simply not a view that I can find acceptable. The lessons of history are that there must be a role for government.

In this debate about the reform of social security let me quote perhaps one of the best expressions of the role of government that I have come across in my life time. It comes from Hubert H. Humphrey, a former vice-president of the United States. There are some lessons we can learn from our American friends. Perhaps there are many they can learn from us as well.

Mr. Humphrey said the moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped".

Surely that is the kind of test we want to put before any government as Canadians. That is the kind of test that this current government is quite prepared to stand up and meet in its mandate over the next four or five years. The minister's initiative in this reform of social security is a very clear testament to that.

On this side of the House and in Canada in general there are those who say the Liberal Party should refrain from using the word reform since it is the label of one of the current parties in the House. I categorically reject that. The real reformers in this House are those members on this side who are true to their liberal principles. That is who the real reformers are.

I will never stop using the word reform because it is a word which history has shown to be a liberal word. The liberals on this side of the House are proud to be members of the Liberal Party and we intend to continue to have our voices heard within in our own caucus, within this House and within this country to make sure that our views are put forward with the views of Canadians all across this country who share the fact that there must be a role for government to play.

What are the areas of reform that need to be examined in our current look at these particular problems? The unemployment crisis we face, if not the most serious situation, is right near the top of the list. Never have so many suffered so much in such a few short years in terms of job loss. Not since the days of the great depression. We simply must attack that and do everything we can as a government and as a nation to get Canadians working again.

The best kind of social reform we could come up with is a program of job creation. It was quite clear in the election campaign which party was the only one prepared to speak consistently, day in and day out, about jobs for Canadians. On October 25 we saw reflected the result that Canadians understood who was prepared to address the real concern, the unemployment crisis.

In terms of attitude in society, unfortunately we have drifted into a situation where there are far too many Canadians who seem to be accepting unemployment insurance and welfare as a way of life. I like to believe and I do believe they are a minority. Frankly I know, coming from a municipal councillor background, that some people are prepared to accept it as a way of life for themselves. We cannot allow that attitude to continue.

That is not to condemn the unemployed. Far from it. I would be the last to do that. In fact I submit that most unemployed Canadians truly want to work, but we need an attitudinal shift which has to be led by the government. We must insist that people who are willing and able to do work but unable to find work are given some gainful employment, some meaningful role to play. We will help them over the short-term crises they face until they are able to find full-time employment on their own.

Whether that will evolve into some kind of guaranteed annual income or some system of workfare I am not sure, but I know very clearly from my experience that we cannot encourage and let continue the attitude that one can just stay at home and be supported by the taxpayer. That has to be discouraged in the very small minority of people who unfortunately have that attitude.

I would like to say a word about the co-ordination of social programs. As I mentioned my own previous experience was at the municipal level. It is all too clear to those of us who come from a background in municipal government that there has been a consistent downloading of responsibility from the federal government to the provincial government and then down to the municipalities that have nowhere to pass it on to except to local property ratepayers. It is simply wrong and unconscionable that should go on.

Quite frankly the redistribution of income should be handled by the senior levels of government, by the federal and provincial governments. That is a far more just situation for the clients of the system, for the people who need assistance. It is far fairer for them and it is far more just to local taxpayers in any given municipality.

I come from London, Ontario, and represent the riding of London-Middlesex. We have seen examples of where people have come to our city from other parts of Ontario and have unfairly created a significant problem in the welfare budget of that municipality. That very important program must be funded from federal and provincial budgets.

Yes, there is only one Canadian taxpayer. We know that, but it is not a responsibility that should fall upon the shoulders of municipalities. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has been saying that for years. I am confident that Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance will hear that message and take steps to redress the lack of co-ordination and of proper funding of the programs.

The area of child care was a subject referred to earlier by a Reform Party MP. There is nothing more important to fund than child care. There are people who need subsidized care. We must give that care to the children of the working poor. If we do not we see far too clearly the horrendous social problems that result. We simply delay paying the piper and create a number of problems.

With those thoughts, I am very confident as a member of the new government that we are on the right track. Real reform will take place, led by the real reform party in the House, and that is the Liberal Party.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comments.

The hon. member expressed his views. He explained for me exactly why we are here in this House to debate. The member for Vancouver Centre questioned why we were here to debate. She said: "What we are doing really is not having consultations together". She indicated that we were pre-empting the decision. I would have to say that the hon. member who just spoke did exactly that.

I have to go back to the member's text. I do not know if he actually had this written down or if he was ad libbing. He did say that we want to help them over the short term and then we are not quite sure where they are going to go from there. He was speaking about the unemployed.

"What will this eventually mean", the hon. member asked. I would like the hon. member to clarify exactly what was meant by that statement. Having used the example of an annual guaranteed income was of some interest to me. I would like some clarification on that point.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had some speaking notes and I would like to correct the hon. member.

I was trying to make the point that social assistance should be short-term help, whether it is in the form of welfare or unemployment insurance. It ought to be in its best application short-term help.

I did not indicate in any way where do they go from there. Hopefully people on this short-term help will find with the assistance of government and the private sector gainful and decent employment.

If they do not, as they have not been unfortunately, the short-term help has had to become long-term help, hence the problem we find ourselves in.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise for the first occasion in the House of Commons.

As is the tradition with maiden speeches I would like to take a moment to thank my supporters who elected me on October 25. More particularly I would like to thank my campaign workers who spent many hours on my campaign. I would especially like to thank my wife for her patience, encouragement and the many sacrifices she has made in support of my campaign and my new career. Last, I would like to thank my parents for their support, guidance and encouragement over the last 37 years.

The riding of Elgin-Norfolk sits on the north shore of Lake Erie and runs approximately 100 miles east to west. It begins in a small town called St. Williams in Norfolk township and runs through to Rodney in Aldboro township.

The riding is the birthplace of many great contributors to both Canada and the world including Mitch Hepburn the former premier of Ontario. As well, the inventor Thomas Edison was born in Elgin-Norfolk. The renowned Liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith comes from just outside St. Thomas in a small town called Dutton. Last, the great Canadian, the leader of the New Democratic Party and member for Yukon also was born in Elgin-Norfolk.

Elgin county has a long agricultural tradition. It has many farms ranging from dairy farms through cattle farms, cash crops, chicken farms as well as many others.

It is also the home of an important manufacturing sector, particularly in auto related manufacturing and auto parts. The main population centre, the city of St. Thomas, is the home for the Ford Motor Company and Freightliner Truck Manufacturing.

The people of the riding of Elgin-Norfolk wait with great anticipation for the performance of the 35th Parliament of Canada. My riding has suffered a tremendous job loss through the last five years. Factory after factory has closed permanently, all in the name of global restructuring. These people are anxious to see policy changes which will increase their job security and provide hope for their future, for their community and for their children.

The initiatives of this Parliament must speak to the needs of the people of Elgin-Norfolk as it must speak to the real needs of all members in Canadian society. Canadians, regardless of where they live, expect that job opportunities will be created out of economic growth and fairness in the tax system and expenditure policies of this new government.

I would like to speak for a moment about first principles. The principles of a good income support program or labour force adjustment system should include a fundamental commitment to the principles of social justice and a preferential option for those most in need. Furthermore all of our programs, including social spending, should facilitate a stable and growing economy.

The contribution that social spending makes to economic growth has often times been overlooked in economic debates. However a full discussion at this point would take me beyond my 10 minutes so I leave it for another day.

More fundamental than the principles of any government program are the principles of government. Mr. Vaclav Havel, in his first book as president of the Czech and Slovak republic, stated: "I am convinced that we will never build a democratic state based on rule of law if we do not at the same time build a state that is-regardless of how unscientific this may sound to the ears of the political scientists-humane, moral, intellectual, spiritual and cultural. The best laws and the best conceived democratic mechanisms will not in themselves guarantee legality or freedom or human rights-anything, in short for which they are intended-if they are not underpinned by certain human and social values".

My challenge for the Minister of Human Resources Development and all members of this House is that we craft programs which are both humane and moral.

Many members on both sides of the House, from all three parties, have spoken about the pressing social issues in their communities, be it the unemployed, the hungry, day care or violence in the home. I would like to add my voice to theirs and press the government to find solutions to the problems of economic hardship throughout our nation. More specifically I would like to ask the government to attack vigorously the issue of poverty, including the plight of the working poor.

Too many Canadians, many of whom are working, are experiencing long term and real financial and emotional difficulties because they have fallen below the poverty line. Our labour force adjustment strategy must ensure meaningful, well paid jobs for Canadians not part-time subsistence work that has too often been the case in the past.

Recently Dr. Shaw, a professor at the University of Toronto Medical School, estimated that health costs due to unemployment were over $1 billion a year. To all the members here, I suggest that if we measure the health costs due to poverty it would far exceed $1 billion. Our programs need to deal with the issue of poverty head on, both for those who are working and those who are not working.

In the few moments remaining, let me move from the general to the more specific. Ultimately our ability to generate wealth is a function of our knowledge. We live in a knowledge based economy. The degree to which wealth is shared in this country is a function of our moral commitment to take care of each other and that means, in this day and age, ensuring that every Canadian has access to meaningful education and meaningful training so as to gain the knowledge to become a contributing member of society through a job.

More specifically our review of UI needs to review the training programs included therein. Too many of our training programs are merely effective band-aids that do not offer long-term realistic hope. The national training act needs to be revamped. Provinces need to participate in an honest dialogue so that the bogus distinction between education and training disappears.

Let me close by asking all members of the House to respectfully set aside their ideological differences and work together to meet demands for a fairer Canada and a more just Canada and end the scourge of poverty on our land.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to enter into this debate.

First of all I would like to congratulate the member for Elgin-Norfolk. I can sympathize with him in making his first speech in the humble assembly that is here. I can recall my first week in the Alberta legislature. I was asked to move the speech from the throne at the young age of 27. I remember a number of people in the government of that time who had been there for 27 years and had most likely heard 101 different speeches and I had to say something different to them. I remember that being a very humbling experience. I am sure the member felt that way today but respects this institution very much.

I would caution the hon. member that one of the diseases that often sets in after you have had the opportunity of being in this assembly is that the 10 minute speech early in your career seems to enlarge and enlarge until it becomes the 40-minute speech. So be careful of that disease as you go forward in your career. I wish you all the best and congratulations on your first speech in this assembly. Very well done.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member will always want to speak through the Chair.

I am a little bit puzzled. Is the hon. member responding to the speech or is he making his speech now?

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Perhaps I could start my own speech if it is appropriate or if Mr. Speaker permits I could ask a question of the hon. member.

[The Speaker]

I was sort of looking forward to that expansion of the speech that took 27 years. If he has a short question I would like the hon. member to have a chance to answer.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

I wish to ask the hon. member how he sees the study that is going to take place with regard to human resource development. Does the hon. member see the targeting of programs for those who are need or does he see it in terms of the philosophy of the government approaching the responsibility of human resource development, social services and other related programs on a broader budget basis?

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner for those kind comments. I have no difficulty with the concept of targeting those most in need. It is fundamental to what we need to do as a country.

Over the last five years our expenditures on unemployment insurance have grown from approximately $11 billion to $20 billion. In large part that is due to the problems in the economy and the major downturn or economic depression we have been through.

Given that we spend so much money in this country we need to always for the sake of the poor and for the sake of those most in need make sure that money is always well spent.

We need to look specifically at training programs that quite often do not do the job. When our programs do not do the job as they are supposed to, it is the disadvantaged people that are most hurt, I have no problems with targeting those most in need.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

I appreciate very much the courtesy to me and the hon. member as well, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to indicate I appreciate very much that the government has allowed us as members to have input into the reforms of the social security system and to make comments.

The minister has requested that all Canadians throw off the old ideas, put aside vested interests and give some new impetus and some new objective to our social security programs. That is a very honourable objective of the minister.

Many other ministers and many other governments in the past have also set the very same objectives. It seems to be a pattern. When a new government comes to a legislative assembly or the House of Commons the first thing it wants to do is review what has happened and start anew. I certainly hope when we do this review, we maintain some of the good programs and some of the assistance, the safety nets that have worked well across this nation.

Many Canadians in health departments and in social services, social development and welfare departments have worked hard to try and hone the current system this nation has. Over the years I have had the opportunity of being involved in a number of those reviews and studies.

The point that I want to make in my few moments here today is with regard to what I see as the objectives of the Reform Party of Canada and how we want to place ourselves in this review and reform that will happen.

I say to the hon. member for London-Middlesex who was talking a little earlier about having an inside track on reform, I hope we approach the reform of the social service system on a broader basis so that all Canadians and all sides of this House of Commons have input into the new changes which will come about during the first or second term of the 35th Parliament. Not just the government, not just the Liberal Party, not in a partisan way but on a broader basis.

As the Reform Party we must do two things. First of all, we have a basic philosophic approach to social programs and those programs meeting the needs of Canadians. I am sure all of us have heard that in this assembly. We believe we should help those in need, that no Canadian should suffer from a lack of food, clothing, shelter and health care, that those basic four requirements should be available to every Canadian. We believe it should be there.

However we also say that because of the current circumstances where we are some $500 billion in accumulated debt, that the current track of the Liberal government as is set out in its program whereby the object is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP, even reaching that target we well recognize that in the first year, if we reach that target in 1994-95, there will still be a $25 billion deficit to accumulate on the debt. If we looked just at that figure over the next four years we would add another $100 billion to the $500 billion.

What does that do in terms of the tax dollar? Right now, 32 cents out of every tax dollar goes to pay interest costs. If we continue to build up the accumulated debt, as some economists and some of those who have researched this very well have indicated, if we continue on that type of a spending pattern, by the end of the century we will end up paying 50 cents of every one of our revenue dollars toward interest costs. The question then is: How much does that leave to meet those basic needs we think are so important, the food, the clothing, the shelter and health care for Canadians?

We cannot run the country on 50-cent dollars. It is impossible to do that kind of thing. We have to come to grips with it.

With respect to the upcoming budget, in the informal discussions that are going on not just in this assembly but in discussions in other committees and in talking informally with government members and those who are trying to examine the budget deficit that is coming up, the forecast is that we most likely will have a deficit in the 1994-95 budget of $38 billion to $39 billion. So we can imagine how that is going to erode and eat away our capability as legislators to meet our social objectives. That has to be part of the discussion when we look at reform.

It will not be the ideal that we come up with. We have to work within the financial constraints we are facing. Certainly I would recommend to the government in this reform that we must then look at the definition of those in need.

There are a couple of examples. During our campaign period we talked about those on old age assistance. At the present time some $14.4 billion are allocated across this country in the current year. In the former fiscal year it was about the same amount of money. Those dollars, $14.4 billion, are allocated to those persons receiving old age assistance.

What we are saying as Reformers is an example of targeting of programs. Those seniors getting a family income of $54,000 or more-we feel that is adequate for the senior to live on-if we were able to on a graduated basis maybe to $70,000 of income, reduce their old age assistance using a formula we could take out of expenditure in that old age assistance program some $3.4 billion. That amount could go toward reducing the deficit. Rather than a $38 billion or $39 billion deficit that adjustment in program may bring it down to $35 billion or $36 billion. That is the kind of thing we have to do.

We have to look at the whole health care program. I know the question of user fees is tossed around by the various provinces. I come from the province of Alberta which is seriously looking at user fees. I know the government has said it will not do that but it is not because it wants to punish someone or take something away, but there is a capability during these difficult economic times for people to be able to pay for part of the service.

It is also believed there may be a deterrent in that those who really do not need the health care service will not visit the doctor as often as they are presently doing. We have to look at the case of user fees as well in this review and this reform.

I could use other examples with regard to targeting of programs. Under the circumstances I believe those terms of reference must be considered in this reform. This is not a period where we have a lot of money, where we can say to Canadians that everybody is going to have a share of the government pie or the revenue. We are not at that period of time in our history as legislators and we have to recognize that. We have a major

responsibility in this assembly to come to grips with targeting social programs and to be very fiscally accountable.

In my last few moments I would like to refer to a report that was done in Alberta in 1967. This report is a white paper on human resource development. It was written by the Hon. Ernest Manning at a time when I was in his cabinet as the Minister of Public Welfare. A major author of this was also his son, now the leader of the Reform Party.

We put this white paper together and I am not referencing it just for the sake of bringing this document here. There are some basic principles in this paper that looked at human resource development. It was the first document put together in Canada on human resource development. We in the province of Alberta introduced that concept. Following that period of time there were other provinces and also the federal government of the day that accepted some of the basic philosophy of the human resource concept.

There were three basic objectives. One was to look at programs of maintenance. There is a group of people in Canada that needs assistance and maintenance. The second one was rehabilitation and the third was preventative programs.

We had leading programs in the area of prevention in Canada and I would like to recommend that to the committee for study.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for his remarks. I am pleased to note that his book is also red and I could reference another red book that may expand on some of the points they raised so long ago.

I have a curiosity about part of what he presents.

On the one hand his party has spoken strongly against any expansion of taxes, any increase in taxes or anything to do with causing people to pay more. Yet on the other hand his party is quite willing to support user fees which by definition will cause people to pay more for services they receive. I wonder if he can reconcile this contradiction for me.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

That is an excellent question from the hon. member. We look at it this way. If we are able to reduce the cost of government, people will have more money in their pockets to pay for some of their services.

There is a direct relationship between the reduction of the cost of government and being able to pay for some of one's own needs. In the four areas I mentioned, in terms of food, clothing, shelter and health care, we would look at the individual having more of a direct relationship between using the service and paying for the service.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend made reference to my earlier comments I hoped I would have the opportunity to ask him a question. I appreciate that.

I made my point that to reform is to improve a situation. It is to find a better way. Frankly that is the liberal way, and the party that has consistently done that most effectively in this country is the Liberal Party on this side.

Can the hon. member tell us how the destruction of the national health care standards, which is the result of those policies put forward by his party, would improve the situation for Canadians in need? Can he go on and explain to us those specific improvements in the social security system that the Reform Party stands for?

The hon. member uses the phrase "target social programs" and that is the difference. We want to target social problems. Can the hon. member enlighten us on those points?

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

In terms of the first question, if that reform means improving things and doing better we certainly agree with that.

In terms of our targeting social programs and the hon. member said social problems, I think we are using semantics more than anything. I believe what the hon. member is saying is that individuals out there are in need and that is who we would target. We would have to categorize for example those that we feel need incentive and encouragement to go back to work, look after themselves as our economy picks up. We should have that kind of flavour in our society. Our Prime Minister said the other day that he wanted to get rid of dependency. We agree with that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Dairy industry; the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River-Rouge River valley; the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine-Immigration; the hon. member of Rimouski-Témiscouata-Policy on appointments; and the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe-Unemployment insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take a few moments this afternoon to discuss the reform of Canada's social security system.

Given your role here in this House you are of course non partisan, but you will remember clearly that, during the last election campaign, our party made a commitment to the people of Canada. Indeed, we promised to give new confidence to the majority of Canadians about having a job and a more promising

future in the years to come than they could hope for in recent years.

As the then Leader of the Opposition and now the Prime Minister said on the steps of Parliament Hill the day the election campaign started: We must give Canadians their smile again. We must give them that hope. We must make them feel better.

I am very much in favour of this initiative because, after all, the goal is to improve social programs. For example, the proposals put forward by our colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development are aimed at improving the social security system, so that it can better meet the expectations and needs of Canadians.

A good number of these programs have been in place for several years and the Canadian economy has changed since they were first introduced. I remember the days when an unemployment rate of three per cent was considered equivalent to full employment. Today's figures are totally different. I also remember the days when it was perfectly normal to have one salary per household, the bread winner usually being the man in the house. It goes without saying that these standards no longer apply. The situation has evolved and we must not only adapt accordingly, we must also change our social programs.

I am of the view that the best social program is a job. There is nothing quite like it, as they say in the commercial. If the best social program is a job, as I submit it is, then surely all of the other programs that we have must be such that one is always better with a job than without one.

That is not the case with social programs today. How many times have colleagues in this House heard constituents tell them that they cannot afford to work, that the social program that they are on is designed in such a way that they are taking a cut by going back to work?

For a single mother with three or four children going back to work is not easy. As a matter of fact, in many cases it is, without saying impossible, very hard. I am of the view that it is high time we started thinking of such concepts as guaranteed minimum annual income in such a way that no one is punished for trying to make life better for themselves. No one is punished for finding a job. That is not the case right now. That is not the case at all.

The other part to this is the unemployment insurance programs that we have. A few years ago we got into training programs in a rather major way under many aspects of what is commonly referred to as UI. Some of these programs are for training but they are confusing at best.

Those of us who have referred constituents to training programs under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act know that these people can, if they get benefits the day that the training begins, receive those benefits for a period which could be extended to 156 weeks. However, if these people make a claim under a program not covered by section 26 and go back to school while receiving UI benefits, they not only lose the possibility of having their benefit period extended, they also lose those benefits.

You will agree that if the objective is to provide training, programs should be structured so that people are not penalized precisely because they take a training course, as they should.

On the other hand we have section 14. People qualify under section 14 to take a training program sometimes identical to those under section 26. If they are taking a program and if they are offered a job they must resign forthwith from the training that they are taking to go to the job.

However, if they were approved under the other section they do not have to do it. That does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems that whatever little block was ticked off beside one's name determines how the training one will be receiving will be administered and whether one will receive benefits, extend benefits or have the benefits cut off altogether. That does not seem like a reasonable proposition to me.

If you are on unemployment insurance and you apply to work on some of these make work projects, under section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, you go back to work and you receive a form of top-up in addition to your benefits, providing you have enough benefits to cover the whole period of the project you are going to work on.

In other words, if you have nine weeks of coverage left and you are starting to work on a project that will last ten weeks, you cannot work nine weeks and then quit. You have to refuse to take it altogether because you must have the requisite number of weeks for the duration of the program.

Maybe this makes sense to somebody but it does not at all to me. I am having some difficult explaining all of this to those who asked me to represent them in this Chamber.

I would like to see the government take a look at the administration of its programs, so that these are better managed and, more importantly, better co-ordinated, to meet the needs of Canadians.

I will conclude by saying that I do not agree with those who claim that we are spending more and more on social programs.

I just received today a document entitled "The National Finances", published by the Canadian Tax Foundation. According to this document, social programs subsidized by the federal government represented 23.1 per cent of the tax base in 1984, compared to only 22.8 per cent in 1993-1994. We must not forget that. We must not claim that we are proportionally spending more and more all the time.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. I noticed that he too had found in the present system many faults that make it absolutely absurd from the recipients' point of view. So, how do you expect the public to understand what the hon. member was talking about?

Here is my question: Is the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell aware that he is no longer in the opposition, that he is a government member and that his government could act now rather than spend another nine months consulting?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the hon. member is suggesting that we should not have consulted him, as the duly elected representative of his riding, and the other duly elected members of this House, that the government should have acted in an arbitrary manner, without consulting Parliament. This may be a Bloc Quebecois pattern of thinking but we, Liberals, have more respect than that for this place than the Bloc has demonstrated. I might add, regarding the member who has asked me the question in particular, that I know his own political background much better than the previous Conservative government?

Basically, what we want to do is to hear from the duly elected representatives of the people to ensure that our programs will meet the needs of Canadians. After all, that is what we were sent here for.