Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in such a historic debate in this House, one that I think is of great importance to all Canadians because we are talking not only about the social security network that supports us all in times of trouble but also about a very significant portion of the federal government's budget.
The green paper recently released by the Minister of Human Resources Development contains a number of interesting proposals that have already been the subject of considerable discussion and will continue to be the focus of that discussion in the weeks ahead.
The government's objective in regard to the improvement of Canada's social security programs was outlined very briefly by the Prime Minister in a speech he gave to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec in September. I quote him: "Our objective at the end of the process is a reform system of social security that protects the most vulnerable while enabling all Canadians to obtain a fair and equal opportunity to exploit their
talents, lead fulfilling lives and experience the dignity of work".
Those are words that would reflect the views of a series of Prime Ministers of this country from Laurier to King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Turner, Trudeau, and of course the present Prime Minister who said the words.
They are words that come from the leader of a party that has introduced virtually every social program this country enjoys today. It is not a party that is in any way anxious to tear away the fabric of the social programs that we have built for Canadians. It is not our intent in producing this green paper to destroy in any way or rip apart the social safety net that we as a party at various times in government in Canada have worked to build.
On the other hand, there is a pressing need for social security reform. I can only look at the figures. I have quoted them in public meetings in my riding before and I do so again. The green paper concerns federal expenditure of $39 billion or about 24 per cent of total federal expenditures. It does not include pensions. It does not include expenditures in government departments related to transport, foreign affairs, corrections and national defence.
In other words, a huge range of federal government programs are excluded from the $39 billion figure that is the subject of discussion in the green paper on social security reform. It is the only other single government expenditure that is as large as the interest on the public debt which is at $40 billion. Some say: "You can reduce the debt figure and that will solve your problem". That is complete nonsense, utter hogwash.
The government does not control interest rates in the country. It can affect them. It can influence them. It cannot control them. In the end Canada's interest rate, the national rate charged by our central bank, will have to reflect world trends. It will have to reflect those for the very simple reason that the value of our dollar is tied to interest rates in the country. That is an unfortunate fact of life, but Canada cannot simply go about setting its own interest rate ignorant of world events, world trading patterns and currency movements. We recognize that we can influence the rate; we cannot control it.
Since the government has taken office it has influenced the rate. Whether it was done directly or not I cannot say; I do not know. The rate has gone down, the Canadian dollar has dropped and Canadian exports have increased since, leading to increased prosperity in the country. That may be one of the factors leading to prosperity. There are others but that is a principal one. The changes that have come about in our world economy have no doubt improved the economic situation of Canadians, but it has not improved to the extent that we can ignore the fiscal realities the Minister of Finance has been discussing.
We have a particularly competent Minister of Finance who has gone before the Standing Committee on Finance and made what I can only describe as a brilliant exposition, describing the state of the Canadian economy today and inviting Canadians to address that committee to express their concerns and views concerning tax changes in the country and how we can improve the tax system to make it fairer and better.
He has also asked Canadians to comment on what they would do if they were minister and were drafting a budget. Where would they cut? Where would they increase taxes? Where would they seek to increase revenue, and so on? Those questions are extremely important. We have engaged in a great national debate on this subject and we read about it daily in the media.
Unfortunately much of what we see are ideas that if we simply cut interest rates everything will turn up roses. I do not accept that for a moment. I do not believe it is true. I think the people that are saying it know it is false. They are simply putting the message out in order to distort the view of Canadians that things can be improved in this easy way without some painful changes in our systems.
What did the Minister of Finance say in his brilliant exposition before the Standing Committee On Finance? First, he indicated that the world economy has become far more integrated than it was 40 or 50 years ago when many of the social programs were put in place. It has become more integrated and global and trade barriers have disappeared. We have brought down trade barriers both through GATT and through the North American Free Trade Agreement. Those are being extended rapidly around the world.
Second, people from what we once called the third world are joining the global economy. They are producing goods for sale in this country that are inexpensive and that Canadians are buying. We will continue to buy them in increasing numbers because they are less expensive. They are also quite well made in many cases. We are getting better and better products that are made abroad.
Third, information technology is exploding. It is easily portable and we cannot stop it from changing across borders around the world. If we do not get on the bandwagon and produce goods and deliver services in a less expensive and more efficient way, we will be outpaced by others who can do it less expensively elsewhere. The technology that allows us to deliver the services more cheaply will move to the places where it is being delivered cheaper, reduce costs further and leave us high and dry. All this means is that competition is forcing companies, states and individuals to change their method of work, their method of dealing, and the way they interact one with the other.
I quote the Minister of Finance again:
For three entire decades after the second world war all we knew was high job growth, high productivity growth, high income growth and low unemployment. We ignored the fact that our unemployment rate was rising relentlessly with every recession and staying up.
As he pointed out, the unemployment rate 25 years ago was usually at 5 per cent. During this past decade it has been steadily at 10 per cent. Unemployment has become more serious for Canadians and the costs of it have risen enormously.
The Minister for Human Resources Development in his introductory address to the House when he produced the green paper and led off this debate pointed out that workers and employers finance unemployment insurance through their contributions. He said:
It is simply costing too much. In 1980 the program cost $4.4 billion. Last year it cost $19.7 billion. In other words, in about 13 years the costs quadrupled. We cannot allow this escalation in UI costs to continue.
The minister was right. For that reason we have to look at the unemployment system to see what can be done to improve it. It is very important that the green paper which has made some proposals be thoroughly discussed and I have aimed to do that.
The minister outlined two basic proposals for change in UI. He is willing to receive others. He has made that very clear. That is what the public debate is about. He said we could have a new unemployment insurance program or we could tighten the rules of the existing UI program further.
We have been tightening the rules ever since I got elected in 1988. We watched the Conservative government tighten the rules right, left and centre, causing pain and anxiety to a lot of Canadians. In the last budget there was further tightening of those rules. I do not think that continuing to tighten them is really helping the unemployed. It is not.
We need to find a new scheme that encourages people to work rather than encourage them to remain on unemployment insurance. The minister pointed out that because the program has been in place for so long and because it has some fairly generous rules here and there it is easily abused both by workers and by employers. They schedule work around UI instead of the other way around.
We are not taking out unemployment insurance against the day we are unemployed. We are taking it out and receiving it because we know there will be a period of unemployment. It is planned for in employment contracts today. That is not what the system was designed for. Canadians are paying a great deal of money for this system through the charges that are put on them, especially if they are ones who are in places where they are regularly employed and paying the new higher premiums.
The day after the tabling of the green paper I met with members of the construction industry in my community. They were very much concerned that unemployment insurance would be changed as we know it. They are not seasonal workers, but they are people employed in the construction industry who are unemployed from time to time, not at any particular time of year but whenever there is not work available for them. As they pointed out to me, many of them travel great distances to get work. They are quite prepared to travel to Windsor to work on a construction project there, or to New Brunswick to work on a construction project there if that is necessary. They will travel great distances to get work. However, if there is no work available, they depend on and need unemployment insurance.
The indication to me was that they would pay higher premiums if they could continue to receive unemployment insurance. They did not mean higher premiums in terms of the employer's share. They meant in terms of the employees' share. The employees would pay more if they could keep UI in something like its existing format.
I invited them to make a submission to the minister, send a letter to the minister or prepare some kind of brief through their union-and some union leaders were at the meeting-to let the minister know what they could do in their view to make the system work for them.
I have stressed to the minister in my discussions with him the importance of UI to people in that particular job category. In the green paper there are suggestions that perhaps UI will have to be tailored to fit the needs of different areas of our workforce. That would be worthwhile. It is a sensible idea. I hope that there are suggestions forthcoming from members of the construction industry in Kingston and the Islands.
Another thing the Minister of Finance said that I think is important is that we missed the signals with these rising unemployment rates. I quote him again:
And as we were missing those signals what did we do? We borrowed to paper over the problem, borrowing first from ourselves, then from foreigners and always from the future.
The hon. member for Elk Island in his remarks referred to the fiscal crisis facing Canada today. Most members of the House acknowledge that is a serious problem facing us. For the years from 1988 to 1993 I sat here and watched while Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson fiddled. They did absolutely nothing to solve the deficit problem in Canada. Indeed it got worse and worse the longer they were in office. They were elected in 1983 with promises to fix this problem. They were going to bring the deficit under control within two or three years-I have forgotten the promise now-from 1984. We all know what Mr. Mulroney's promises were worth.
We sat on the other side of the House, some of my colleagues for the full nine painful years, but me for only five, and watched the government do absolutely nothing to make the situation better. I know members of the Reform Party who are here missed this, but we heard budgets presented that indicated that within three years the deficit would be down to, I think the low figure we heard was $16 billion. It never got anywhere near $16 billion. The projections were always wrong. They were revised in every budget and the promised pay off was always deferred another two or three years. It was really quite nauseating.
The minister kept insisting with every budget every year that this time his projections were going to stick, that he had made the right decision, that everything was going to be fine in another two or three years, and that we should just hold on to our seats and wait and see what happened. They did not hold on to their seats, thank goodness. We have the remnants of the party sitting over there, all two of them. It was a string of broken promises that really deflated and disappointed Canadians.
We have heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Finance the proposal he has put forward to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross national product by the end of the third year of our mandate. That gives us two years to reach that figure.
It is not going to be the annus mirabilis when we get there, but it does signify that at least the Government of Canada is willing to make a commitment and stick to it. The Prime Minister has indicated his commitment to that figure repeatedly in the House and elsewhere. I believe it is important that the government achieve this.
The critics of social reform, and I point specifically to the Bloc Quebecois, all sit and howl and scream and say: "You are eliminating this; you are going to hurt everybody". Yet they know perfectly well that the government is not seeking to reduce all its expenditures through this one package alone.
I have no doubt in the ability of the Minister of Finance and in his sense of fairness that when he seeks to achieve that goal of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in another two years, he will achieve it by making reductions across a very wide range of government services and government programs. It will not all be done through reductions in social programs, which is what the Reform Party would like us to do.
On the one hand, the Bloc Quebecois wants everything to remain the same, unchanged, exactly as it is right now. Unfortunately, this is no longer an option. There is no way status quo can be allowed to continue. This is just impossible.
On the other hand, the Reform Party wants to cut all the social programs and let Canadians suffer on their own, abandoned by their government, abandoned by the social programs they have paid for with their taxes lo these many years.
