Jan Brown

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more point with respect to building up the reserve. I will move away from the small business comments I wanted to make.

Regarding the surplus in UI, I maintain the finance minister will probably do some very creative accounting with that surplus. He will reach his 3 per cent of GDP in the next budget and it will be on the backs of taxpayers in a UI surplus. Our growth rate right now, as was just reported, has moved from 4.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent. No one can tell me our economy is going anywhere. We have not created a single sustainable job since the government came to power.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I concur that this is a welcome meeting of the minds. We can have reasoned debate. We can come to the House of Commons and feel secure in knowing that at least our ideas will be received and debated in an atmosphere of collegiality, understanding that we come to this place with differing ideologies.

The simplest answer to the hon. member's question when it comes to differing ideologies and how we understand and view the unemployment insurance system is that there is no doubt in the minds of the Reform Party that the unemployment insurance system is a fundamental labour market institution as it was developed in the 1940s. When it was developed in the 1940s it was for a specific reason: temporary assistance as an individual moved between jobs. It was not as it has now become, and I am quoting: "a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net".

If we look at it in those terms it is coming at the question from two very different points of view. On the one hand we would like to see it as part of and included in the labour market as a tool. On the other hand it has become part and parcel of the fabric of social support in Canada. Quite frankly, I do not quite know where a meeting of the minds would find agreement. We could see where each of us is going, based on our belief systems, on what we believe to be right.

Another comment with respect to the question of differing ideologies is from something which appeared on page 20 of the briefing notes we were given the other day. It comes back to the question he asked. I question the political motivation behind the part of the proposal dealing with employment benefits and services.

The federal government is now committing to work in concert with each province. The alarm bells start to sound when we start thinking about each province. The hon. member talked about inclusion and the same kinds of support across the country. Yet in my mind it will obviously be different because each province is invited to enter into agreements.

For the decentralization the hon. member has described, it tells me there will probably be a different set of circumstances for each province given its particular debt, deficit and unemployment situation. This will include the agreements. That is why I say there could be quite a difference when we are talking about federal-provincial alignment.

The design of the employment benefits and measures, how they will be implemented and a framework for evaluating the results tell me there will be consistency across the country. It just opens a social safety net to all kinds of expectations that perhaps the government has not thought about.

With respect to the member's comment about growth and small business in the country, there is no question that small business generates lots of jobs.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Decentralization is not about breaking the law with all due respect to my hon. colleague on the other side of the House. The government has resisted the natural ebb and flow of this federation by operating completely oblivious to its surroundings.

We saw this in the recent referendum. The government grossly miscalculated by adhering to a status quo position. Only when it became obvious that its policy was a complete failure did it move to make insincere promises of change. Now where is this change? Where is this vision for a new federation, a new federalism? Where is the blueprint for a renewed Canada? Where is the leadership to bring forward such a plan, given this government's previous attempts at major change? I would suggest that we will be waiting a long time before we see substantive and meaningful change.

Let me give one example of how this government is failing to deliver on its promises to reform and decentralize social programs. Consider the current welfare issue in British Columbia. I wanted to come back to that in my text because it is extremely significant today. When the province made changes to its own program by stipulating a residency requirement for welfare qualification, the federal government stepped in, and it has indeed stepped in, in a punitive fashion today, and threatened the province. Yesterday the artificial deadline passed in B.C. and we now see the results of what has happened.

There is no question that the B.C. government should be permitted to administer its affairs without federal interference. The minister, rather than taking such punitive action against the province should back off and leave it free to run its own programs. It is absurd for the minister, who has radically reduced transfers to the provinces, to turn around and intervene in provincial jurisdictions.

The minister continues to refuse to meet with the provinces over the Canada health and social transfer. Now when the provinces try to move forward, he stands in their way. Go figure. It would seem this is the Liberal position on co-operative federalism. How terribly predictable. How truly unfortunate. How really "made in Ottawa" it is.

During our briefings on Bills C-111 and C-112 we were provided with a briefing package on the changes these bills provide. At every twist and turn and at every reference to labour market training it is very clear that the provinces must negotiate with the government. They must seek to enter into a formal agreement with the federal government on how employment insurance benefits will work and how they will be delivered. Instead of giving complete power and adequate resources to the provinces, these amendments give a de facto veto to the federal government over the management and control of manpower training programs.

Ironically, the Liberal government is holding on for dear life to programs it has proven it is absolutely incapable of managing properly.

Just two weeks ago the auditor general stated in his report that there are grounds for concern that a lack of training in key areas may be producing a braking effect on jobs for the unemployed when the economy is expanding. Clearly, Canada's auditor general believes that the Liberal government is failing in its attempt to create those long term sustainable jobs, jobs, jobs we keep hearing about from the other side of the House. In fact, one may conclude from his comments that the government is actually hindering job creation, not helping it.

The minister's changes amount to mere tinkering, not a sweeping and comprehensive reform. What we need are systemic reforms that address the needs of the chronically unemployed, which was what UI in 1940 was intended to do. It was to provide a bridge for short term unemployment, not the massive social safety net we now see.

I would like to share briefly with the House three options for change the minister did not address. Two of the options involve decentralizing power for training programs to the lowest level of government: directly to the individual. Our options for relinquishing control to individuals are motivated by the desire for individuals to care for themselves when they are capable of doing so. That is absolutely fundamental to the Reform ideology of individuals accepting responsibility to take care of themselves when they are able to do so. That is not too difficult to understand.

However, the government wants to maintain control over training because it is a traditional political activity to maintain visibility in the area of employment and job creation. After all, the election is only two years down the road, and we want to be visible out there. Boy, we went out there and created those jobs, jobs, jobs. Are we not good?

The first option to be considered is that employment insurance could be returned to a true insurance plan, as it was originally intended to be when it was created in the 1940s. This would mean doing away with regional inequities in the program and ensuring that only those who truly need benefits receive them.

The system has become an income supplement. Income supplement does not, in my definition, translate to insurance. We believe there is a need and place for income supplements, but they should not be in UI or EI or whatever it is called. UI was meant to provide workers with temporary assistance for brief periods of time when they were between jobs.

The second option would be for individuals to change how they contribute to unemployment insurance. They could contribute to registered employment savings trusts, or REST accounts. These accounts would be mandatory and would be used at the discretion of the individual. As many people never use UI, it is only a tax with no benefit. With a REST account, similar to RRSPs, if the funds are not used the money could be directed into their super-RRSP accounts. This idea is not without its problems; I acknowledge that. The period of transition would be difficult and youth and the intermittently employed may find the plan difficult to manage.

A third option for the government is to drastically slim down EI, return it to a true insurance plan, and at the same time have individuals contribute to REST accounts. These things would happen together. This plan would ensure that the chronically unemployed are cared for and that those people who are seldom unemployed would be able to administer their own employment insurance program. They would not be taxed.

These are three options we are developing. We hope that in the new year we will be able to finalize our research and bring our plan forward to Reform's general assembly in June, where the membership, the people, can debate and come to a final decision on this important policy plank.

Having proposed options for decentralizing training, and after having demonstrated yet again how badly the Liberal government has broken its promise to transfer labour market training, I move:

That all the words after "prevents" be deleted and replaced with the words "the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true labour market training policy of their own".

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments.

Like everyone speaking today, I am honoured to address this motion. I clearly do not support the motion because referencing only Quebec narrows its scope. When the intent behind the motion is applied more appropriately to all provinces then of course I would support such an action.

At the end of my speech I will amend the motion so that it refers to the powers of all the provinces. Given they should all be treated equally, we must ensure motions such as these reflect that.

The motion proposed by my hon. colleague allows us to address some of the points made in the recent so-called employment insurance reforms. We believe the government intends to prorogue the House but in doing so may try to manipulate House procedure to ensure this legislation does not die on the Order Paper. Tabling the bill so close to Christmas break demonstrates that the government either does not expect to give it second reading until next February or that it hopes the bill will die on the Order Paper. Either way, tabling the bill as it has amounts to nothing more than irresponsible governance.

I will first address some of the amendments to employment insurance and then will focus on the government's failure to transfer powers to the provinces for labour market training. In its throne speech on January 18, 1994, the government stated that Canada's social security system must be responsive to the economic and social realities of the 1990s. This was a noble sentiment and we agree with it. However, the government also said in the throne speech that it would announce an action plan for major reform of the social security system to be completed within two years.

The minister's announcement is not major reform of the social security system and it barely qualifies as reform of the unemployment insurance system. I say this because the minister's tinkering will not create a single sustainable job.

Let us take a closer look at some of the changes. This is cosmetic change, not the kind of real governmental changes that Canadians are demanding. It is a name change; unemployment insurance is now employment insurance. Do we think that Canada's unemployed care about what the program is called? Unemployment by any other name is unemployment. It is this kind of rhetorical grandstanding of which Canadians have grown weary. Changing the name of UI to EI will not create a single sustainable job in Canada.

There is a rollback of payroll taxes of five cents for every $100. This is a tax rollback of one-twentieth of one per cent. This amounts to a savings akin to a wooden nickel. It is hard to imagine this so-called tax cut will create a single sustainable job in Canada.

The minister wants Canadians to think he has rolled taxes back but let us look at what is really going on. Part time workers will now have to pay the UI payroll tax which includes employer and employee shares totalling a 7 per cent tax hike. When eligibility is changed from weeks to hours, the government is imposing a tax grab on part time workers, a tax grab of over $1 billion.

This means youth in Canada and working moms, many of them single parents, will have to foot the bill. Youth and working mothers will have to work many hours to be eligible for benefits. While they are accumulating benefits the minister will be sure to tax their paycheques. The big problem with this is the lengthy period of eligibility. It is often the case, as it is with the nature of part time work, that the contributors will move from job to job with short periods of unemployment in between. This means youth and working moms will pay benefits and seldom will be able to collect. This amounts to a substantial tax grab on a segment of society which can least afford it.

The government has no estimates of how many jobs will be lost because of it. It does not know how many jobs will be lost because it has failed to do a thorough analysis of this aspect of the bill.

According to statistics ending in October of this year, youth unemployment in Canada stands at 15.6 per cent. We needed to hear yesterday and today some ideas on how to get our youth into meaningful work situations. Instead of positive change we have learned that today's proposals will cause employers to hire fewer part time workers because a tax is effectively imposed on the hiring of part time employees.

Let me restate this point. Part time workers now represent a massive tax hike on employers. This will not create a single sustainable job. In fact this change may choke off part time work altogether. This is especially disturbing when one considers that a growing percentage of the labour force is employed part time.

The minister announced an $800 million job training program. The auditor general's recent report indicated that these expensive and wasteful schemes do not create jobs. He criticized the Western Economic Diversification Program, ACOA in the Atlantic provinces and FORD-Q in Quebec. We all know what a colossal failure

the TAGS program has been. The government itself admits that the $6 billion infrastructure program only created a few thousand short term jobs.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about this announcement and more specifically related to the motion we are debating today relates to labour market training. It is clear from the government's package that the Prime Minister broke faith with Canadians when he announced he was giving labour market training to the provinces.

The minister is trying to sneak through the back door a new made in Ottawa social program scheme which will intrude on provincial jurisdiction. He has created two mega programs and for all these new programs all the provinces must reach agreement with the federal government. The Liberal government needs to give power and resources to the provinces with no strings attached. If not, then the gesture is meaningless. The government simply does not understand what decentralization means.

Let us move on now to decentralization, an issue that has garnered significant attention of late, especially given that the EI changes break the Prime Minister's Verdun commitment which he reiterated on Tuesday last week.

It is ironic that we debate the government's broken promise of decentralizing manpower training today. Today at committee we will hear the bureaucrats explain to us how Bill C-96 also fails to decentralize powers. In fact, the bill may even create new powers for the federal government. Even if this new power never manifests itself, the bill at a minimum entrenches the status quo of federal intervention into provincial areas of social policy jurisdiction, areas I am sad to say for which the new EI bill fails to relinquish power.

I find it quixotic, though I suppose not entirely uncharacteristic, that the government would try to enact legislation which engenders and champions the notion of centralization and the status quo. To do so amidst the decentralization forces pressuring the country to change is profoundly absurd.

Recent events have shown to all that fundamental change is required of our federation. There is almost universal agreement that the federal government needs to rethink its current role as provider of services and programs. In areas of social policy we cannot continue to support a system which separates the revenue raising capacity from the expenditure function. In other areas too there is strong evidence to support devolution to the most logical level of government.

In October the Reform Party released its vision for a new confederation. Reform believes that decentralization will permit future governments to respond more effectively to the needs of ordinary Canadians. It also addresses many of the historic concerns of individuals from all provinces.

Reform's plan includes giving provinces exclusive control over natural resources, job training, municipal affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation. It gives the provinces control over setting their own interprovincial standards for health, welfare and education, replacing federal cash transfers with tax points, and allowing provinces to raise their own taxes to finance social programs.

This decentralization will lead to a more balanced federation, one in which Ottawa will play a co-operative role rather than a dominating role. The proposals outlined in the new confederation speak to the long term. They furnish Canada with a vision. They put flesh on the conceptual bones of a new federalism. This is the kind of leadership that has been conspicuously absent from the current government benches.

How can one govern without a coherent direction? It is incomprehensible. I am not talking about prescience here, but about the courage to say: "These are my ideas; this is my vision". We have seen none of that from the government.

The traditional response to fiscal crisis has been centralization, consolidation and concentration. This instinct increasingly leads to failure. Centralized control and consolidated agencies create more waste, not less. There are many reasons that Reform speaks for this vision of decentralization and they will be outlined.

Decentralization will engender greater flexibility allowing institutions to respond more quickly to changing circumstances and client needs. Decentralization will create more effective program and service delivery, as the deliverers and providers of government assistance are closer to those they serve.

Decentralization will reduce waste, overlap and duplication created by concurrent jurisdictions and poorly co-ordinated government programs and services. Decentralization will engender greater fiscal responsibility, for a government that spends the money it raises will inherently be more accountable than one that spends the money someone else collects.

Decentralization in regard to the tax system is most compatible with the tenets of federalism. The efforts of a federal form of government is local autonomy. In its designated spheres, each unit is free to exercise its policy discretion unencumbered.

It is important to remember in this debate on labour market training that decentralization is neither a celebrated buzzword nor a passing political fad. It is a policy movement that has been vigorously championed in Canada since the 1960s. It represents reconfiguring the locus of attention in the federation.

Former B.C. Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson writes in his new book: "Canadians ultimately want less control by Ottawa and more local management of their affairs. The basic concept here is government closer to home. Now home is where the heart is in our private lives perhaps, but in government terms, home is where the folks have the knowledge and resources to do the job. That single thought takes us a long way".

Adhering to the rule of thumb that the responsibility for addressing problems should lie with the lowest level of government possible does not require that we disavow the notion of federal leadership. A federal government with fewer employees, fewer departments and smaller budgets can still have a steering role in Canadian society. There would still be a policy framework setting function in certain areas even if no services were delivered.

These would include: policy areas that transcend the capacities of state and local governments such as international trade, macroeconomic policy and much environmental and regulatory policy; social insurance programs like employment compensation where paying equal benefits to all citizens requires that rich and poor share differentiated burdens; and investments that are so costly that they require tax increases which might discourage business from locating or staying in a city or province. These are fundamental to leadership and to federalism at the central government level.

Even in these cases, Reform believes that programs can be designed to allow for significant flexibility at the provincial or municipal level. The federal government can and must work with provincial governments to define jointly the mission and the outcome, but in doing so it must free lower governments to achieve those outcomes as they see fit.

Today we see that British Columbia is going to be penalized to the tune of $47 million for trying to do just that. What has been the Liberal response to decentralization?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request of you and through you to the minister that any remarks on the presence or absence of my colleague from Mercier, as was made in the previous portion of the debate, be deleted from Hansard .

She is accorded the respect of all of us according to parliamentary procedures. One of the core issues relevant to that respect is that we do not remark on whether she is here or not. There were comments made by the minister during his speech and by colleagues surrounding him that may be part of the blues. I would like that to be addressed.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is habit forming when we have to respond to the question mark. This is about killing part time jobs.

There is very little evidence that the part timer tax will benefit anyone except the federal coffers. Many businesses are opposed to this scheme. Ultimately, the increased cost to business will kill off the creation of part time jobs and generate huge tax revenues. In fact we expect this tax will generate over $1 billion.

How can the minister justify this $1 billion tax grab at the expense of part time workers?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me continue.

The new tax will hurt 2.5 million part time workers and their employers. The minister wants us to believe that this tax is revenue neutral. The fact is that the students and working moms targeted by the tax will be forced to pay for months, 910 hours to be exact which accumulates to months, before they can collect and few ever will. This is not a revenue neutral tax. This is a cash windfall of $1.2 billion at the expense of part time workers.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the changes to unemployment insurance that the Minister of Human Resources Development announced on Friday will not create a single sustainable job.

The new 7 per cent payroll tax is a full time tax on part time workers and amounts to a massive tax grab. Since tabling his bill the minister and his officials have failed to inform Canadians exactly how much more money the government is getting from this tax grab.

Why will the minister not tell Canadians exactly how much money he is pulling out of the pockets of part time workers?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of the House on that suggestion.

The last thing I heard last night before I went to sleep was Jason Moscovitz on "The National" talking about the dreariness of this debate and how we were again looking at the discussion that had come up during Meech and the Charlottetown accord. There was a dreariness in all of this discussion because the House was mostly empty, the galleries were devoid of people, and there was no one around with any passion or enthusiasm to talk about the matter of Canada.

When I woke up this morning I thought I wanted to capture some of that in what I have to say today because I think it is important we remember what brought us here. I thought I would like to direct my comments from where I sit. Where I sit in the House of Commons is a very special place for me, because I have watched for two years the House of Commons work together, pull together when we needed to and have debates that were reasoned.

Over time something has happened. Now we have this rancorous, bitter exchange across the floor of the House of Commons. I wondered about that as I reflected on the throne speech of January 1994. I recall what the leader of the official opposition said that day about his responsibility as an opposition party: "We intend to take these responsibilities seriously and we will do so loyally, correctly, and with due resolve. We know that is what Quebecers expect us to do, and they would never forgive us if we deviated from this path".

Although that was a very tough foreshadowing of this debate today, I believe that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying that day was that he wanted to work within a democratic environment for the good of his constituents and for the rest of Canada. His vision was one we should never forget to respect, because his vision is his own vision, as the Prime Minister's vision is his vision and the leadership of our party carries our vision.

None of us respect that. We have forgotten that we should co-operate and that our professional lives are within these walls. The rhetoric we hurl across the floor has become meaningless. No wonder everyone feels so embittered.

On that day the Prime Minister said: "By working co-operatively to create economic opportunity, by restoring common sense to our public finances, by rebuilding a sense of integrity in government, and by pursuing a positive and innovative agenda for our society, my ministers are convinced that Canadian unity will be preserved and enhanced". Where have we come from that day to today, when we are talking about constitutional amendments, constitutional veto, distinct society? He made a promise to Canadians two years ago that it would not be that way in the House of Commons.

Our leader, prior to the election, said on October 12, 1993: "I personally believe that the Canadian people have the capacity and the desire to define not only what this election should be about, but what kind of Canada they want for themselves and for their children for the 21st century. In other words, I believe it is possible for a new vision of Canada itself to emerge from the bottom up if we begin to truly let the people speak their hearts and minds".

We came here as a different party with a different vision. We never were told that the difference was a good thing; we were always told it was bad. No one could define that difference in terms of a new idea, a new vision, a different way of looking at this country. We were always told we were bad. We were poor performers in the House of Commons. The press gallery said that our ideas were poor. How could a bunch of hayseeds or rednecks from the west ever have a good idea to put forward? It was our vision and it should have been respected in that context, but it never was. Part of the reason it never was is why we are here today debating constitutional matters and distinct society.

I ask all members to remember why we are here. Our constituents sent us here. We have forgotten about that representation. We are not simply preparing for an election in 1997; we are renewing and retooling Canada for 2050. That is something we absolutely must not lose sight of in this debate, that we are retooling our vision for this country for the next millennium, for our children and for their children. We are really leaving them with one hell of a mess. Excuse my language.

The issue of unity does not reside in a unity committee, a small committee with a small number of people who have small ideas. Those ideas are going to capture the hearts and minds of the country if they go out to the people. It is the people of the country who are going to make the difference. They are the ones who drive the engine and the heart of Canada. We can sit here and debate this issue until we are all white with exhaustion and fatigue and we can be embittered. But I believe we have a country that is worth working together for.

It must be that westerners understand there is an opportunity to become involved in a debate, but so too must Quebecers and easterners recognize there is an opportunity for us all to debate. It should be taken out of the House of Commons and placed into the hands of the people of Canada.

Eugene Forsey wrote in his memoirs: "I have faith that Canadians, both English-speaking and French-speaking-would be able to face the future united-`One equal temper of heroic hearts -strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield'''. That is what we must do in the House. The bitter rhetoric we hear every day must give way at some point to argument that is reasoned, to ideas that are new, to a vision that will take us into the next millennium. My fear is that we are not moving in a direction whereby we are recognizing one another as colleagues and as Canadians.

The hon. member of the official opposition has become a very embittered politician. I have seen that over two years and from where I sit it is sad to see.

The Prime Minister, this man who had the hopes, hearts and tremendous support of Canadian people, has become shrivelled in his ideas, in his demeanour and in his approach to the country. We are back to this dreary Meech and Charlottetown debate.

I am not saying that the Reform Party has all the answers, but until we start talking together as Canadians even the best of visions will have no place to go but in its own entrenched little part of a balkanized country. It is my hope and prayer that will not happen.

I cannot support the bill because it would concentrate the power in the hands of governments and not of Canadians. I remember why I was put here by my electors in Calgary Southeast. It was to carry their hopes, their dreams and their visions for a Canada into the third millennium.

[The Economy, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a sense of humour, so I will let that tree comment pass.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is a tax junkie. He gets his fix by funnelling billions of dollars from UI into wasteful job creation schemes and into deficit reductions. However there is hope for recovery. The minister can register today in a 12-step program to break his tax addiction.

Will the minister commit to breaking his tax addiction by rolling payroll taxes back by more than a wooden nickel?