Garry Breitkreuz

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

They would not even let them co-chair the proceedings.

[Social Program Reform, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should have put his proposals in a yellow book. If he is talking about targets, everybody knows that if he does not have anything to aim at he is not going to miss.

Canadians have been waiting for six months for this no action plan and now everybody knows what it is full of: limited options, no price tags, no time lines, and no hope.

Are there any other major surprises coming on social program reform, or should Canadians just throw the discussion paper away and keep an eye on the newspapers to hear about his plans?

[Social Program Reform, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development when we could expect to see legislation. Now we read that the minister has reassured Atlantic premiers that proposed changes to unemployment insurance would not be implemented for five to seven years.

Why did the minister not clearly tell Canadians that with his no action plan changes would take five to seven years?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the answer is obvious. Yes, I am very disappointed.

Look at what this government is doing and the time line this government has laid before us. Back in January or February the government said it would put down an action plan and it would come forth in April. Then the government postponed it to September. Now in October we have more discussion.

If we look at what is going to happen in the future, if we follow this whole process through, now the government is saying we are going to go through a consultation process. Consultation is fine, but if it is just an excuse for more inaction, I cannot find that acceptable.

Then the government said it was going to introduce legislation in the fall of next year, 1995. That legislation is going to be debated, it is going to go through committee, it is going to go through first, second and third readings and that all takes time in this House. That brings us to 1996, the year before the election.

I ask: Does anyone think this government is going to seriously make some big changes just before the election? The answer is obvious. I do not think we are going to have substantial changes. After one year of inaction and another couple of years of debating and fiddling around with this thing, I do not think this government is seriously committed to really doing anything with social programs.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of humour. However, I do not think it is very funny when we look at what is really in this paper.

First she criticized my remarks in regard to the power the federal government is trying to exercise over the provinces. If she had read this green paper she would realize the federal government is trying to take away control from the provinces in areas the Constitution of Canada has given them, such as training and education. Those are provincial responsibilities and this government is trying to get more and more involved in those areas.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member how incorrect she is when she says the government is trying to get the co-operation of the provinces. That is pure talk and no action. The government is giving the provinces less and less funding, but is continuing to maintain control. That is co-operation? Obviously not. You cannot expect the provinces to co-operate if you do not give them more control. I think that is a very serious accusation the hon. member has made. I think the Bloc members over here have some very legitimate concerns about this federal government taking over provincial jurisdiction. We ought to listen once in a while at least.

The hon. member also said that I did not see anything good in the paper. Obviously she was not listening very well to my speech because there are some options in here which we commend. For example, in unemployment insurance the reduction in the duration of benefits is a good thing. I have mentioned that. To reduce the level of benefits, to have income testing, to have all of these things I said are very good.

However, I also said that not all of the options were included. She said I am not getting involved in the debate. She has not been in this House very much if she does not know that we have made many suggestions to this government in previous speeches which it has not read and not included in these options.

That is what I was saying again today. Why are these options not included? Why are these options so narrow? Why is the government trying to have more control over the lives of Canadians rather than letting them have more jurisdiction over programs like unemployment insurance?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am so disappointed with the government's mishandling of the opportunity we had to really reform Canada's social safety net. Our social safety net is full of holes and it seems like the minister is trying to shove it full of paper.

It is clear the government is without direction. This is a government without priorities. This is a government without a sense of urgency. This is a government without a long term perspective.

This is not an action plan as promised in the motion introduced by the minister in January and passed by this House. This is not even a good discussion paper. The minister's no action plan says there is a problem with overspending. His paper says that our social programs do not work. His paper says that people are becoming dependent on government handouts. However, any common sense person would come to the conclusion it is the government that is the problem.

The minister goes on to suggest that the answer to all these problems is more government programs. People tell me that none of this would be happening if the government would just take its greedy fingers out of people's pockets and let them run their own affairs.

How much will each alternative proposed in the no action plan cost to implement? What will be the social impact and consequences for each of the alternatives proposed in this no action plan? How many jobs will be created by each alternative? How can Canadians make an informed choice if they do not even have an assessment of the costs and the benefits for the proposed alternatives? How can Canadians make an informed choice if they do not know whether their own lives will be better or worse under the Liberal alternatives?

In yesterday's press conference the minister responded to questions about whether the cuts from social programs would be $1.5 billion or $7.5 billion by saying that fiscal parameters were already set and that there would be other changes in fiscal arrangements. What does the minister mean by other changes in fiscal arrangements? There can only be spending cuts or raising taxes. Will the minister admit that there will be no cuts or will he tell Canadians by how much they can expect their taxes to increase?

I would like to focus my response to the no action plan on the alternatives proposed for the unemployment insurance program and the so-called employment initiatives. I might remind everyone that unemployment insurance is the only program clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Constitution of Canada. All of the other programs the minister talks about in his no action plan are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The Angus Reid survey released by the government this summer clearly shows that the majority of Canadians think training and employment programs should be delivered by the provinces, not the federal government. The problem with this government is that it refuses to give up programs that do not work, programs that were not the government's in the first place.

Going back to unemployment insurance, the minister has failed to explore all the options that are open to Canadians with respect to UI. The Reform blue book policy has said for years that UI programs should be based on true insurance principles and administered by the employees and the employers who pay those premiums.

UI premiums come right out of the pockets of the workers, whether they are paid by the employees or their employers. Did the minister not once consider that the employees and employers who pay the premiums might not like the government taking their money and doing just anything it pleased with it? Did the minister consider that? Did he make it an option?

Did the minister even consider that the UI program should be voluntary rather than compulsory? Why is this option of giving employers and employees control of their program not included? That is a grave omission and one the minister should correct immediately.

The no action plan proposes using UI premiums for employment development rather than straight unemployment insurance as it was originally intended. This is an average of about $1,500 per year for each worker in Canada, money that comes directly out of the pockets of each worker. UI premiums are the second largest source of revenue for the government, next to personal income tax.

The minister is picking the pockets of the workers without their consent. This is just another cash cow the Liberals are trying to milk. The minister should be asking if this is what the workers who pay the premiums want, but that option is mysteriously omitted from this book. The government wants more control, not less, and it is not an option given to the Canadian people to decide upon.

The paper is full of so-called new ideas for helping people with job searches, personal counselling, training and so on. The problem is they are actually old ideas. For instance, the American 1988 jobs initiative was highly touted but proved to be a dismal failure. There is no meaningful analysis of why government has botched such things in the past so there is no suggestion about how to do it better the next time. There are some who claim that subsidized job training works, but oddly enough the OECD just took a hard look at this and rejected it as a failure. Yet this government thinks it is possible.

The 1960s Liberal thinking has failed and the countries that Liberals and NDPers used to hold up as shining examples of this are now in trouble. Sweden has cut housing subsidies. Norway is tightening disability payments. France requires those on social assistance to enrol in work training schemes. The Netherlands has set its social assistance at 50 per cent of minimum wage. Germany and Italy are raising the age at which pensions can be claimed. In Britain income support is available only on the basis of need and only after passing a means test. You decide who to believe: the so-called compassionate politicians that have got us in this mess, or the Reformers who have a plan to get us out.

The dribble in this paper about flexibility, about creating opportunity, about addressing individual needs, about minimizing waste and so on is just a bunch of hogwash. They are good intentions without any useful suggestions as to how it would be accomplished.

Madam Speaker, if you were really hungry and this was brought forth as food-this green book-after going through and digesting it, you would still be very hungry. There is no substance in it. It is like cotton candy. It is so big and it is sweet. It sounds so good, but it does not fill you up. There is nothing in here of substance. The one place where there is anything resembling substance is on UI.

As I explained, there is no action plan, no recommendations, no priorities but there are two fairly clear options. One is new. It is called the employment insurance program, which sounds better than the unemployment insurance program because employment is better than unemployment of course.

In Saskatchewan we have a little animal called a skunk. It does not matter what you call that skunk, it still stinks. This option proposes dividing recipients into frequent and occasional users. Although it charts the rapid rise in the former category, it blames it on globalization, not on the program itself.

I believe that if you want to get people off UI you have to quit paying them to be unemployed. Although the paper admits the difficulty of defining the two categories, then points to regional complexities, it makes no useful suggestion as to what should actually be done; nor is there any analysis of the perverse incentives that might be created thereby, or of the dual bureaucracy it would generate.

It does recommend lower benefits and job programs for frequent users. However it notes that job programs might require more money, not less. Then it says that UI has become a welfare scheme and it might be a good idea to target it based on need. Means testing is one possible good idea, although it would be better to leave welfare to welfare and make UI into real insurance.

The other option presented is to keep the program as it is, but to increase the requirements for qualification or reduce the duration or the amount of the benefits. The review itself notes that while this would reduce spending it would not address the many structural flaws in the system.

The discussion paper also mentions eliminating regional discrimination, which is a good idea, plain and simple. This is a policy straight from our Reform blue book. What worries me is that this good idea lacks the trendy, active labour market orientation to which the minister seems to be committed.

There is no cost benefit analysis here as elsewhere in the paper for the various options that are listed. Canadians cannot make choices if they do not know the costs and the benefits, whether the new situation would be significantly better or worse than what exists now.

It should be noted very strongly that the minister's alleged options paper certainly does not lay out all the options. That is one thing we must be clear about. Conspicuously absent are allowing employers and employees to administer unemployment insurance; voluntary versus compulsory unemployment insurance; a return to true insurance policies-none of these are in there-and finally, making no changes without the consent of the workers and employers who pay the premiums.

One glaring example of how off base the whole review is is that it points how much of recently created jobs are in part time, temporary, self-employed or multiple job sectors, which are not covered by UI. It even notes that these sectors are growing precisely because they are not covered by UI. Therefore they avoid the crushing payroll tax but it calls for the usual creative ideas for extending UI to these areas.

Government does not need any new programs. Lower taxes and create jobs. The finance minister clearly acknowledges that very principle and yet it is not clearly contained in this proposal.

The review notes that payroll taxes are bad although it coyly says that at least in the short run, payroll taxes discourage job creation, as though in the long run things might be different. It then discusses trying to create surpluses in good times to avoid having to raise premiums in bad times when they can least be afforded. This is a good idea but the funds must be kept separate from general revenue, not squandered on other things.

If it was a true insurance program this would be unnecessary. There is no separate fund for unemployment premiums. The paper contemplates removing the ceiling on earnings, subject to the payroll tax and lowering the rate so that the incentive to create exempt part time jobs at the low end would be reduced.

This shows some awareness of perverse incentive but if one does this, and taxes back the UI at high incomes one is moving away from a true insurance program. UI encourages unemployment precisely because it is not true insurance but a subsidy for those who are not working.

It also canvasses the idea of experience ratings, that is, moving toward real insurance by basing premiums on previous employment history. This is a good idea but why not go all the way?

It must be noted, and it is, that this makes the program more expensive for those least able to afford it. That is why it should incorporate a key principle of real insurance. It should be voluntary.

It proposes reducing premiums for employers who support training quite apart from the fact that most jobs involve informal training already. If this is done, then every single employer will move to have formal training and bigger firms will find it easier to do so. It will help crush small business and that is very serious.

I think Canadians will be disappointed, as I was, by the lack of leadership in the minister's no action plan. The minister has failed to lay out a clear path to significant reform as promised in the throne speech.

In those areas where he laid out options, he has not attached a fiscal price tag. An even greater tragedy is that the human cost analysis in terms of what improvements this reform will make are also missing.

How can the minister initiate a substantial debate on social reform without providing these key pieces in a debate. It is like trying to teach kids with only the first half of the book or giving them a test question in math without all the information.

We must admit that the process of social reform is more than just deficit reduction. The financial constraints are clear enough but the real problem with Canada's social safety net are the incentives that the current system is creating for Canadians.

Not only does our safety net need re-evaluation due to fiscal reasons but the inherent damage that these programs have created needs serious attention. This is why it is such a tragedy that neither the fiscal nor the social implications are laid out in this package.

If the minister is unwilling to lead this debate he faces the likely prospect that he will be left behind. Social policy must move beyond the outdated 1960s thinking that has characterized today's social programs. We need to admit that many of the assumptions underlying Canada's social programs are damaging Canadian lives.

We see increasing welfare and UI dependence. We see increasing amounts of students unprepared for the school to work transition. We see rising tax burdens. We see increasing family disintegration.

What are Reformers saying about these failures of Canada's social safety net? It is time to recognize the failure of the 1960s Liberal thinking and move toward the 21st century with real Reform thinking.

It is time to question universality. It is time to target social programs to those who are truly in need. It is time to recognize that we do not have the money to pay for all our social programs. It is time to consider affordable programs that can be sustained. It is time to reduce the number of programs and bureaucracy and consider flexibility, empowerment and put control of the programs back into the hands of the people.

It is time to recognize the dangers of big, centralized federal governments and consider community based and family oriented solutions. It is time to address the inherent dependency of present social programs and consider self-sufficiency, self- reliance and personal responsibility. It is time to question inflexible national standards and consider flexible programs that are responsive to human and economic reality. It is time to eliminate shared jurisdiction over programs, eliminate duplication and overlap and consider clear accountability of governments.

I feel strongly that this is the greatest boondoggle the government has come up with yet. We had this big drum roll before this was introduced, a big fanfare. We expected a good act. Then the inaction plan whimpered out on to the stage. Is this all there is?

The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Liberal government still think that outmoded solutions can be applied to modern problems. If he is unwilling to take on sacred cows, he is likely to get trampled by the whole herd.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this answer absolutely proves what I have been saying: attack the questioner.

We have been discussing and consulting now for one year. Could the minister make a commitment today that he will not allow any factors to interfere with or delay in any way the much needed social policy reform that should be happening now, not a year or two from now?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the answers that the human resources minister has been giving and the answer to every one is the same: Attack the questioner. I believe the minister is making a virtue of this consultation process as an excuse for inaction.

Will the minister of human resources tell us when we can expect legislation from this no action plan to be tabled in this House.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I meant it in the generic sense.

How does the plan in this booklet create jobs? Can we have a clear and reasoned explanation as to what in this whole plan will create jobs? I would like a clear and reasoned answer to that because it is not obvious when reading it.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments and the answers to the questions the hon. member gave.

He made the valid comment that people are being misled. I look through the document and people think there really is something in there that is going to solve the problems of this country. I really think they are being misled.

I would like to comment on some of the statements made with regard to training programs. First of all, who pays for these training programs? The hon. member knows the people who pay for the training programs this government wants to implement are the employers and employees. They are the ones who pay for them. In other words these training programs are a tax on those who create jobs and those who work.

The finance minister has acknowledged that if you were to reduce unemployment premiums you would create many jobs. Yet there is not a clear plan in any of this that that will happen. In fact it is going to be a job destroyer if we continue to have the public pay these high premiums.

If you pay people not to work they will not work.