Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Bill C-17 on April 14 during second reading and again in the report stage. I am pleased to be given so many opportunities to talk about the reforms to unemployment insurance and our income security programs.
In my previous speeches I summarized the changes to the unemployment insurance program. Of the six major changes proposed by the government the Reform Party supports five.
We used these previous occasions to encourage the government to go even further. I would like to use an illustration as to how we feel at this time.
If I went out to buy a horse, looked at it and it looked fine, and I began to examine it, I would start with the mouth. I would check its teeth to see how old it is and I would walk around it and check its feet. If I came to the back and I found a leg missing I probably would not accept it. I would not want to buy that horse. That is how we feel about a lot of these changes to the unemployment insurance system. It looks good but there are some flaws in it.
I listened to the complaints about changes to the unemployment insurance by the Official Opposition. Its concerns show us just how off track the unemployment insurance program is. It proves that unemployment insurance is perceived as a way for social engineers to redistribute income. It proves that unemployment insurance is no longer a true insurance program but a glorified welfare program. The Reform Party would like to change all that. The Reform Party wants to return unemployment insurance to a true insurance program, not a welfare program. We want to get this standing on all four feet, sound and well supported.
Reformers take great pride in getting the principles right before us, starting right at the beginning in reforming the program. The government has launched a two year process to reform our social programs and not once has the minister described the principles on which the government's reforms are based. We find this appalling that no principles have been put forth which this program would stand on. Canadians deserve better.
I challenge the minister and the Official Opposition to ask their constituents some hard questions about the future of our social programs and the future of our unemployment insurance program. I did not describe unemployment insurance as a social program because it is not, it is an insurance program.
If we are going to truly reform the system, then we have to start with two fundamental principles, two fundamental questions. First, why is the government in the unemployment insurance business? Second, why is unemployment insurance compulsory?
Reformers do not think that the government is qualified to answer these questions, but know that the Canadian taxpayer and the workers and the employers who pay the bills are. Reformers have been asking Canadians what they think for years now and we believe it is time the government started asking the same people what should be done.
If the government has the courage to ask ordinary Canadians what they think, it will be surprised by the answers. Here are some of the questions, and I want to spend most of my time outlining the questions that the government should be asking.
First, would taxpayers like to have social programs designed so that they eliminate all duplication between the federal government and other levels of government? Would they like programs designed that way?
Many Canadians see unemployment insurance and welfare as basically providing similar support for the same people. They see little reason for two large bureaucracies, one federal, one provincial, doing essentially the same thing.
It is time to make clear distinctions between income supplements and income insurance and to clarify exactly which level of government is responsible for delivering those services.
I also believe that the level of government that is closest to the people is most often in the best position to effectively administer these types of programs.
Second, would taxpayers like to have social programs structured to lessen the dependency on the system and encourage clients to become economically productive? This is the question the government should be asking.
Third, would taxpayers agree that our social programs should be designed in such a way as to encourage administrators to achieve the stated goals of the program, for example lower unemployment?
Fourth, would taxpayers like to have social programs that are financially sustainable? In particular, should the unemployment insurance program be self-financing? I wonder what the answer would be if we asked taxpayers those questions.
Fifth, if the government is going to initiate large scale reforms to our income security system and unemployment insurance programs, should the government hold a national referendum to ask for the approval of the majority of Canadians? If we make all these changes, should they not be given some say in the final outcome?
Six, would taxpayers prefer to have the UI program operate like a true insurance program, meaning that workers who make repeated claims on the system and employers who repeatedly lay off workers would have to pay higher premiums for the higher risk that they represent?
Seven, would taxpayers like to make our income security and unemployment insurance programs truly accountable? Would Canadians like to receive annual statements indicating how much they paid into each program and how much they received in benefits?
Eight, do taxpayers think that income security programs should be targeted to those who need them most?
Nine, would taxpayers prefer to have income security programs and the unemployment insurance program treat all Canadians equally regardless of the area in the country in which they reside? Should they be treated equal no matter where they are? While reformers believe that Canadians have a right to live anywhere they want in this great country we also believe that no one has a right to become a permanent ward of the state.
The next question is would taxpayers agree that the goal of the unemployment insurance program be to minimize and if possible eliminate all abuse to the system? I am sure that people would agree.
Eleven, do taxpayers think that the unemployment insurance program should be administered by the workers and the employers who pay the premiums? Further, let us ask if workers had a choice would they ask the government to administer the UI program for them? Would they hand over the reins? I think not.
Twelve, do taxpayers, workers and employers think that the unemployment insurance program should be completely voluntary, or should it be compulsory as it is now? That would be a very interesting question to ask.
Thirteen, would workers rather have a choice about where they invest their UI premiums? Would workers get a better return on their investment than the UI program offers them?
Reformers asked the government how many jobs would be created if workers were investing their UI premiums for themselves rather than sending the $8.3 billion to the government to redistribute. If they had that money to invest I wonder if there would not be more jobs created in this country than at present.
Fourteen, would unions not be able to provide unemployment insurance for their members if the workers they represent chose to contribute their premiums to the union rather than send them to the government? Would that not be a very interesting question to put to the workers and see what their answer would be?
Fifteen, would employers like to have the choice about where they would invest the $11.7 billion in UI premiums? Would they like to have some choice as to where to put that money?
Employers pay more UI premiums than their workers. This is a cost of labour for the employer and is really money coming out of the pockets of the workers. How many jobs would be created if employers were allowed to invest that $11.7 billion that is spent on UI premiums if they could invest them back in their company? What if they could put that money into training programs, into research, into development, into export and market development, capital improvements and expansion? The changes would be phenomenal if they had a choice as to what to do with that money.
On February 23 the Minister of Human Resources Development said in this House that reducing UI premiums will create 40,000 new jobs in this country. The Canadian Labour Congress in a brief to the standing committee on human resources development stated if seven cents off UI premiums resulted in 40,000 jobs created then reducing premiums $2.80 would create 1.6 million jobs, and we would have arrived at full employment.
That is what I call a real job creation program. What would employment be in this country? It would be zero if we created 1.6 million jobs. To be fair, the CLC is sceptical that if we reduced premiums that far it would create that many jobs. Reformers are not that sceptical.
Reformers believe that $1 left in the hands of workers or employers for them to invest is worth $5 in the hands of government, a ratio of one to five. Reformers have a much different vision about income security and income insurance programs. Reformers believe in asking Canadians what they think. Reformers believe in giving Canadians a choice. Reformers believe that changes as big as the ones proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development should be ratified by the people in a binding national referendum.
These are huge decisions that we are making. That department alone administers $69 billion. The people know better than the government what needs to be done, and we ought to give them that choice.
For years now the polls show us that in many cases our government is doing the exact opposite to what the majority of Canadians want, whether it is on capital punishment, going easy on criminals, failing to cut government spending or on the unemployment insurance program. It is time to not only listen to the people but to act on what grassroots Canadians are telling us.
Reformers trust the people to make the right choices for this country. Reformers believe that democracy is not something that we practice once every four or five years in the voting booth. Reformers believe that democracy is something that has to be worked at and each and every day we serve our constituents as members of Parliament.
I have told the constituents of Yorkton-Melville that I am their voice in the House. I sincerely hope that each and every member has the courage to ask the tough questions and to represent their constituents' wishes in the House as Reformers do every day.
Let us get our UI program on a solid foundation. We would not buy a horse with three legs. We would make sure that horse is solid and firm. That is what we have to do. We have to get principles in place.