Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the House today on social security reform. I will direct my comments specifically to the unemployment insurance aspect of it and how the proposed changes will affect women and families.
This debate takes place at a critical time in the history of Canada's social programs. The Minister of Human Resources Development launched the social security reform debate in the House last January. At that time he challenged Canadians to define what effective social programs would look like in a world shaped by the economic and social trends we see around us today.
During the following months the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development have both heard the same things from a large number of Canadians. Quite simply our social programs are losing the confidence of the people who pay taxes. They see the inconsistencies and the gaps.
Like every member of the House I have received numerous letters and phone calls on the topic. The polls say it. Our mail says it. Canadians are not satisfied with the status quo. They know that a more effective and a more cost effective social safety net is not just possible; it is necessary. That is why the government released the discussion paper on social security reform on October 5.
We want a debate for all Canadians. One element of the debate is fairness. Canadians clearly reject the idea that we should have a slash and burn approach to social programs. They just want them to work better. They want the money and services to meet the greatest needs with the greatest impact.
Certainly unemployment insurance was not meant to create the cycle of dependency that has developed in too many communities for too many workers. A large and growing share of people who get UI are frequent claimants. Thirty-eight per cent have made three claims in five years. With the best of intentions we have allowed the system to develop into one that encourages low skilled, seasonal and temporary work in high unemployment regions. It does little to encourage people to improve their skills and their options.
A place where that is certainly the case is in the unemployment insurance area. To hear some of the comments in the House on the topic one could conclude that UI is about to be destroyed in some fiendish plot driven by the titans of high finance. One could conclude that the government is bound and determined to roll back the gains that women have made in the labour force over the past generation. One could conclude that we are determined to make poor families suffer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I want to concentrate my remarks today on how the green paper proposals on UI relate to the needs and the realities of women and families in Canada. UI has been serving Canadian workers for over 50 years. For most employees it works as it was intended to. It is insurance to tide them over the time between jobs.
The labour market has changed greatly since 1942 when the first claim was filed. Now people do not just lose one job and move on to another. Structural change in our economy means that people may not just move between jobs; they may move between industries or communities. UI was not designed to deal with that type of situation.
In contrast, as hon. members will recall, is the second option of a system of employment insurance. Within it there could be basic insurance that would work in the way UI does now. People who make a UI claim only infrequently would see no real change. People who need the help with the special benefits such as maternity, parental, adoption, or sickness benefits would still be able to get that help.
At a time when we are asking how we can invest funds to make people employable across all social programs we have to ask the same questions about UI. The discussion paper lays out two different approaches we could take to address the fact that some people need far more help than UI can give them through income support alone.
The first is simply tightening the status quo. Higher eligibility rules, shorter duration of benefits and lower weekly benefits are all options. The only problem is that it does little to address the needs for more active labour force programs. It nibbles at the edges of the program without really challenging the big questions surrounding UI.
People who make relatively frequent use of UI would move into the adjustment insurance category. For these people there would be a greater emphasis on help to find the skills to get and keep better longer term work. The government recognizes that some industries are seasonal and that some communities have little work in parts of the year. That is why we are open to ways to make this approach work well.
Some critics have raised the idea that people who might be eligible for adjustment insurance could have their benefits set on the basis of family income. This has been opposed by some people as a giant step back for women. Before any more interest groups howl about this let us again look at the facts.
First, very few women would be affected by this proposal if it actually came to pass. Women account for only about one-third of all frequent claimants. The program is good for about seven out of ten women. Adjustment insurance would not matter. Their needs would be met by the basic insurance program.
Second, women would still have good access to the special benefits under the system. A study states that women account for 59 per cent of all sickness claims. We know they account for the maternity claims. We can guess that they probably account for the majority of claims raised for adoptions and parental benefits. There would be no change for the vast majority of women who call on UI for help. It will still be there to help them.
Where the debate exists is over a proposal that would base adjustment insurance benefits in part on family earnings. Third, low income people would get the full benefit. A sliding scale would lower the benefits for people with higher incomes. Immediately some protested this might undermine the self-esteem of a woman or it might undermine her financial independence. I disagree with that statement.
In 1991, 18 per cent of frequent claimants had annual incomes of over $50,000. A further 28 per cent had family incomes of between $30,000 and $50,000. Frankly the image one gets is that UI for these people is a regular top-up to family income and not a protection against hardship. Canadians have the right to ask if this is the best way to spend their dollars. I suspect that Canadians will agree that it is not. They will agree that these people claim the money because of a feeling of entitlement, not need. UI is not a publicly subsidized savings account.
The prospect is that by focusing attention on people most in need whose work patterns are the most marginal we can help them break out of a cycle of dependence. The premiers of the Atlantic provinces agree. Economic analyses agree. Canadians agree. The old pattern of 10:42 simply does not work. The answer is not to cut people off and say sink or swim. The answer is to get programs and services in place to help.
Women will benefit from this approach. The idea is to put more emphasis on employment development services of all kinds: counselling, job search skills and work experience training. The idea is to move money from less important places to more important places.
Among the proposals in the green paper was one that raised the question of improving UI coverage for part time and seasonal workers. Most of the people who would benefit from it are women. Twenty-eight per cent of women workers are in part time jobs whereas only ten per cent of men are. The ideas we have suggested could directly address the needs of those women better than the status quo.
Many women need the kinds of programs social security reform will make available. Let us take the example of single mothers. Almost 60 per cent of lone parent families with children under 18 live on low incomes and 95.9 per cent of single parent mother led families live below the poverty line. They often lack support services such as child care that would help them get back to work. Those on social assistance often find that the value of support services like dental care are much greater than what they can earn with the limited skills they may have.
The government has embarked on a series of experiments with the provinces to explore better ways of helping these mothers get back into the workforce. We now have a pilot project in Manitoba that will provide 4,000 lone parents on welfare with employment skills and support. The program is called "Taking Charge". It is specifically to help those people do just that, to take charge of their lives.
We will continue to solicit the ideas and views of Canadians. I am glad to see that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has attracted not only many submissions but substantial attention in the media. The issue is very important. It deserves a full debate. That is why the government has provided financial resources to 19 women's organizations to enable them to participate in the consultative process.
Many times we in the House hear different people ask why we are providing financial resources to organizations so that they can attack the government. This is a case where we are providing financial resources to women's organizations not to attack the
government but to give us the ideas we need to provide help for women.
Our current set of programs were designed at a time when most people needed relatively few skills to get and keep a job. What they picked up in school and on the job was usually enough to build a lifetime of earnings. People needed financial help between jobs. Others needed support if they could not work at all due to disability or family commitments. The old system was based on a stable world with stable skills and stable jobs for the vast majority of working people.
I would like to refer to my own case. My husband and I raised five children who have all been in the workforce for a few years. They were all able to complete university and get jobs. They are now contributing citizens. Not one of them has ever collected a day's UI in their lives. That is not the way it is today. Times have changed. Students coming out of university are having a very difficult time and we have to address that problem.
Our support for programs like New Brunswick Works in New Brunswick and Job Link in Ontario and the Northwest Territories is investing in people and is helping us find better ways to help the most disadvantaged, to help their children break the welfare cycle and to have self-esteem at work. Social security reform can help women and their families far better than any of the patchwork programs we now have in place.
In the end the value to women of social security reform is much the same as it is for men. At the centre of any social security network lies a guiding principle. In a time of constant change that principle must be employability. Real security for Canadians comes from the ability to get and keep a job. Our programs must reflect the fact that this is more complex now than it was in the past. That is true for both men and women.
We cannot stop changes; we can help people provide the skills and supports to meet the realities of change. From letters I have seen and the people to whom I have spoken, that is all most people are asking for. Social security reform addresses important questions that affect women and all Canadians. It points to a new approach to working, to learning and to security. Everyone can benefit from that.
My speech today has been narrow in its focus because I have specifically dealt with women and UI and how the changes we are talking about in our social security reform will affect them. The whole package of social security reform is broad and will affect all Canadians. I felt this particular aspect was so important that I wanted to focus and narrow in on specifically UI and women's issues and I was pleased to do so.