Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is a great honour, as the member for the Quebec riding of Outremont, to speak in favour of the reform unveiled today by the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is a major step, an essential one, one we cannot avoid.
It is with pleasure that I stand today in this House since, as I have mentioned previously, the Official Opposition acts according to a self-serving policy and not a policy aimed at helping Canadians in general and even less Quebecers.
On this side of the House, we take the interests of all Canadians to heart and, as far as we, Liberals members from Quebec, are concerned, I must say that we are working relentlessly to ensure Quebec has a voice in this forum, a highly-democratic one at that, where I am particularly proud to rise in support of this fundamental reform, as I said earlier.
Our society has changed considerably over the past five decades. Following the Second World War, the very nature of the work on the job market is constantly changing. Technological changes, globalization of international markets and the need for environmental protection have shaken the job market, especially in the industrialized world.
A great many industries have undergone substantial restructuring, while others completely disappeared. As a result, several traditional job types were eliminated and replaced by news ones that often require higher education levels and, of course, much more specialized skills. On the whole, workers are unemployed more often, as you may have noticed. Unfortunately, they are also out of work for longer periods.
It should be pointed out that the way things work in the family unit has also changed considerably these past few years. Nowadays, in most families, both parents work outside of home. Nowadays, women have entered massively into the labour market and make a major contribution to our gross national product. There is also a larger number of single-parent families and, more often than not, the head of these families are women.
For one reason or another, these women all too often end up in a situation of vulnerability, if not plain poverty. Like my hon. colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said, the sad reality is that, as a direct result of lone parenthood, the category of people hardest hit by poverty is that of children. In Canada today -this is important to note-one child out of five is living in poverty, which I must say is totally unacceptable in a society such as ours, a so-called free and democratic society.
We absolutely must find answers to these problems. And let me tell you that, with our approach as government, we will find solutions and we will find them not in isolation, but all together as a society, the Canadian society. Over the years, successive Liberal governments have put in place, and I am very proud of this achievement, a social security system that reflected our values as Canadians. I can quote a number of examples. Take for instance values such as compassion, equal opportunity and protection for persons in need.
Such values are basic principles that my party, the Liberal Party, has always promoted, and I am quite proud of that. However, social programs did not keep up with the fundamental changes that have occurred in the Canadian economy, technology, family, global competition and our financial situation. It is also obvious that the public authorities have spent beyond their means these past decades. There has been some kind of international surge of government interference.
Unfortunately, we must face the tough reality that today's governments cannot longer afford the luxury of spending. This is a reality we must work with. At the present time, the size of our national debt seriously undermines our ability to pay for services and-it must be recognized-ultimately slows down the Canadian economy as a whole.
It must be pointed out that the federal government spends $38.7 billion a year on unemployment insurance, employment programs, social assistance, post-secondary education, child tax benefits, and on programs for the handicapped.
Despite all this money, we must come to the harsh conclusion that our system does not serve the Canadian people adequately. We must find ways to spend our money-taxpayers' money in fact-in a wiser, more cost-effective way.
The provincial governments also recognize the need for reform. Several of them have already started improving their own social programs. Recently, in a speech he gave in Quebec City on September 18, the Prime Minister perfectly summed up this government's approach when he said this: "Our objective is to put in place a social security system that will protect the most vulnerable and give all Canadians equal chances of developing their potential, living fully and experiencing the dignity of work".
I fully support these principles underlying the reform undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources Development, and I am confident that the Canadian people will also fully support these principles.
In fact, the mandate we, as parliamentarians, received from the Canadian population as a whole is fairly simple: we must help people to become more independent and-I know that we often go back to this-to live in dignity.
That is exactly what is proposed in the discussion paper, the so-called green book before us today. This green book, which is submitted to all Canadians, outlines problems as well as solutions, essentially in three major areas of social security: employment, learning and security itself.
We all know that, for most families, and I think that this should be stressed, a good job is the best form of social security and a guarantee of dignity-a fundamental human value-for those who have jobs, who earn a living.
That is why the federal government will spend $3.3 billion this year on various job training and development programs. Provided they reduce people's dependency on unemployment insurance and social assistance, these programs are-it goes without saying-a good investment for this government. However, current programs and services as we know them no longer fulfil their mandates.
We will probably get better results by offering new employment development services at the local level. The objective is simple: provide new opportunities, help Canadians find jobs and especially-this should be the ultimate goal-help people keep the jobs they found.
Governments could manage these programs more efficiently by focusing more on local needs.
We must create closer partnerships with the provinces. I stress the word "partnership" because the green book as a whole essentially reflects-I will come back to that a little later-a renewed, modern federalism adapted to today's needs, that is, based on partnership. We need partnerships with the provinces, with the private sector, with volunteer organizations, to better serve the population and especially to eliminate waste and duplication. You are now in a position to understand that-to use a common expression-the cat is out of the bag.
We have before us a paper reflecting an open, flexible federalism aimed at making the most of this system of government in the interest of all Canadians. So you can see why the members of the Official Opposition are-as we often say-lashing out. Since they desperately want Quebec to separate, it goes without saying that enhanced federalism undermines their plans, which is why they lack objectivity.
To go back to unemployment insurance, it must be pointed out that, in the beginning, this program was supposed to help people who had lost their jobs by providing temporary income support. In fact, unemployment insurance was simply, as the term implies, a form of insurance. However, in the new economic environment, our social programs must do more than just issue a benefit cheque. They must also give the unemployed a chance to get and keep a job, as I said.
Let us look at some statistics. Last year, 13 per cent of the unemployed had been without work for a year or more. This is three times what the long-term unemployment rate was in 1976. Furthermore, and this is even more disturbing and difficult to accept, nearly 40 per cent of recipients had made at least three applications for unemployment insurance in the previous five years.
In fact, for too many of them, unemployment insurance has become a treadmill that they cannot escape, which I find most unfortunate. People who are frequently unemployed need practical help which, too often, they cannot obtain. Furthermore, many people, especially women and the young, who hold unconventional jobs do not even qualify for unemployment insurance. This is a very serious shortcoming.
We can no longer afford a system that lets people work 12 weeks and collect UI for the rest of the year. This is a hard fact but it is reality. People who are frequently unemployed must be offered practical help and strong measures to enable them to find a job and, as I said before and keep repeating, to hold it.
With a trained labour force, our cities will no doubt attract investments and new jobs much more easily. The government can provide the necessary tools, but we must seek appropriate solutions together, and this question of working together and partnership keeps coming up.
I emphasize that social program reform is a mutual responsibility. We must pay special attention to how we spend and not just how much. The discussion paper, which I call the green paper, of course, proposes two approaches for reforming unemployment insurance.
The first approach is a new two-tier unemployment insurance plan. For occasional claimants who use the system less, the plan would continue to operate as before and provide the same parental, sickness, maternity and adoption benefits.
Frequent claimants who face what I would call a chronic unemployment problem would be entitled to what can be called adjustment insurance. These benefits could be lower, but beneficiaries would have access to more active measures to find work or to acquire training that will eventually lead to a steady job.
The second approach to UI reform involves adapting the present UI system that we know. This approach would treat occasional and frequent claimants the same way. The period of employment required to be eligible for benefits could be longer or the benefit period could be shorter.
Also, the amount of benefits paid could be reduced. I emphasize that when I talk about unemployment insurance reform, it must be said that these are proposals we are making in the green paper and of course we are counting on the public consultation to follow, beginning in November, if my memory serves me, to find out what all Canadians think about the options we are proposing. This is not a policy that will be followed with legislation; it is a discussion paper.
The second point in the green paper of course concerns post-secondary education. As we well know, education in Canada is exclusively in provincial or territorial jurisdiction; however, we must be reasonable and realistic. We must recognize that since Confederation, the federal government has supported post-secondary education because of the basic connection between education and employment.
This support has helped build the system of universities and colleges that we know today in Canada and of which we are so proud. Now, the big new challenge facing higher education, basically, is access. Our system must educate and train many more people than in the past. Training must also be better suited to the new jobs. I think it is important to point out that in the past three years, the number of jobs offered to university graduates increased by 17 per cent, while the number of jobs offered to people who had not graduated fell by 19 per cent.
The idea that only children and young adults have to learn is outdated, since each and every one of us now has to accept the idea of learning as part of life. With continuing education, we can keep a state-of-the-art labour force and a dynamic economy. Canadians must be able to benefit from better opportunities for education and training throughout their working life.
The system must also be modernized so as not to restrict access to education and training, both for young people who are beginning their career and for workers who want to follow developments in the new economy. As you know, the federal government provides over $8 billion a year for post-secondary education, through student loans or transfers to the provinces. The value of the federal contribution is rising every year at the same rate as economic growth.
We must, however, face the hard facts of what I would call our budgetary constraints. The cash portion of the federal transfers will decrease proportionally, and will unfortunately come to an end within ten years.
Instead of letting these cash transfers run out, we must think of better ways to use this money in order to help more people pay for their studies, thus providing better access to education.
In a competitive global economy, the decision to invest in learning, and no one can blame us for showing goodwill, is economically sound, but the investment must be a shared responsibility.
Thus, two main options are introduced in the discussion paper. The first is to stop the cash transfers to the provinces and territories, and use the money instead to make more loans and grants available to individuals. The second would allow more flexibility in Registered Retirement Savings Plans, so that people could use their savings for lifelong learning. In fact, the commendable goal of the government is to maintain and to broaden access to post-secondary education and learning.
In the interest of greater fairness, the government is proposing a system where loans would be repaid according to the student's future income. Here again, I think no one could blame us for trying to create a much fairer system.
Unfortunately, too many people depend on welfare, whereas, if they had effective employment and training support, they could find a job.
Since 1981, the number of welfare recipients has doubled, reaching just over three million. Our social security system must protect the neediest. It is clear from the options proposed in the green paper that that is precisely our goal.
Finally, members opposite are attacking the reform that we are tabling as if it were essentially an undebatable policy. Let it be clearly understood that the government is working for all Canadians.
Some hon. members opposite have said that they have on their drawing boards an idea for an open, cost-effective and modern federalism. I tell them that on our side, the government side, we think their ideas are already outdated, because the paper just tabled by the hon. minister Axworthy is a perfect example of this new federalism.
