Subject: Reform Dissenting Report on HRD - Part 1
From: [email-masked] (Reform House Leader's Office)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:03:45 UNDEFINED
Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.politics

Reform Party Dissenting Opinion

for the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
	
Contents:
A.	Introduction
B.	Part I:   A Critique of the Report of the Standing Committee
	1)	A Lack of Genuine Consultation 
	2)	A Lack of Scope
	3)	A Lack of Vision

C.	Part II:  Reform's Vision-Providing Better Personal Security for Canadians 
in the Long Term
	4)	A Preliminary Response from the Grassroots
	5)	A Look at a World of Good Ideas
	6)	A Vision of Real Social Policy Reform

D.	Appendix:	Intervenor Funding - Project Sponsors and Approved Budgets
	
INTRODUCTION

	This report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development represents the 
culmination of a consultation and research process which has consumed more than a year of this 
government's term. Given this very large investment of time, given the fact that the government has 
had the intellectual resources of the entire country at its disposal throughout this period, and 
especially given the great importance that Canadians place on their social programs, the 
committee's report can only be described as a shameful disappointment. It is for this reason that the 
Reform Party's critics on the Human Resources Development Committee have felt it necessary to 
draft this dissenting opinion.
	It is our objective to provide a relatively brief critique of the committee's report, then to 
focus on what we believe are constructive solutions to the problems facing the Canadian social 
security system. In particular, we have tried to give emphasis to three themes: 

	(a)	the need for genuine popular consultation throughout the process of reforming the 	
	social safety net;
	(b)	the need for a meaningful review of the security systems of the rest of the world, 	
	in order to find new ideas to use at home in Canada;
	(c)	the need for a fresh new vision of social policy in the next century, founded on 	
	the belief that the best guarantee that governments can provide of individual 	
	personal security is to establish a framework of laws within which individuals can 	
	save for (or insure against) each of the contingencies that life may bring upon 	
	them.

Brad Farquhar, Special Assistant
Office of the Reform Party House Leader     Tel (613) 995-7226
Room 531-C, Centre Block                    Fax (613) 943-0485
House of Commons                            [email-masked]
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

I am not an official spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada

~Xref: utcsri can.gov.general:262 can.politics:67221
Path: utcsri!utnut!nott!netfs.dnd.ca!srv.gc.ca!parl2.parl.gc.ca!Reflead_pc!hermae
~From: [email-masked] (Reform House Leader's Office)
~Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.politics
~Subject: Reform Dissenting Report on HRD - Part 2
~Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:05:07 UNDEFINED
Organization: House of Commons
~Lines: 211
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.32.178.12
Keywords: reform
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]

PART I: 	CRITIQUE OF THE REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE
   	
Section 1:	A LACK OF GENUINE CONSULTATION 
	During the parliamentary committee's six week "travelling road show," Reform MPs were 
the only ones who raised public concern over the fact that 159 special interest groups were given 
almost $4 million by the Liberal government solely to lobby the Human Resources Development 
Committee. Instead of hearing from the regular Canadians we were supposed to be consulting 
across the country, in city after city the committee heard, instead, from representatives of these 
government-funded, interest groups. Ironically, virtually every one of them denounced the same 
Liberal government that had given them their funding as a pack of hard-hearted, elitist budget 
slashers, and urgently pressed the case for yet more of the same reckless spending that has brought 
Canada to the brink of fiscal disaster. 
	This spectacle prompted the Reform MPs on the committee to compare these tax-funded 
groups to Frankenstein's mythical monster. In the novel, of course, Dr. Frankenstein tries to make a 
new and better form of life, but instead creates a monster that pursues him to his death. During the 
committee hearings almost all of the tax-funded, special-interest groups used their subsidized 
appearances before the committee to demand that the government spend yet more money. Many 
proposed raising taxes, completely ignoring the damage high taxes do to jobs and wealth creation.  

A LIST OF THE GROUPS IS CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS DISSENTING OPINION.

	The generous treatment extended by the committee to these groups was also 
extended to deliberately disruptive protesters, starting with the committee's 
meeting in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee 
turned a blind eye to these disruptions and the protests grew progressively 
more disorderly until a low point was reached in Montreal, where tables were 
overturned, water, glasses and papers were thrown, and both witnesses and 
Members of Parliament were intimidated.	The frustration felt by ordinary, 
unsubsidized Canadians as they tried to be heard over the din of the special 
interests is well represented by this passage from a letter sent by Cheryl 
Stewart of Bolton, Ontario and Sandra Evans of Mississauga, Ontario to one of 
the Reformers on the committee:		

	We had applied to appear before the Standing Committee in Toronto.  However, we 
received no confirmation one way or the other if we were accepted.  After several long distance 
phone calls to Ottawa, we were informed that we were not selected but that there was a half-hour 
both in the morning and afternoon where spectators could be chosen by lottery to give a five minute 
presentation. This setup is outrageous. Do you really expect someone to prepare a document, travel 
great distances to Toronto and then hope their name is drawn for a mere 5 minute presentation? 
Subsequently, we have seen the list of approved presenters and it is obvious that the committee has 
an interest in only what unions, organizations and lobby groups have to say about social reform 
and is not at all concerned about what the average Canadian citizen has to say about social issues. 
The Committee's recommendations will no doubt be extremely distorted.

	Reform MPs believe a way must be found for parliamentarians to hear the opinions of real 
Canadians. Reformers believe that many of the problems experienced by the Standing Committee 
during the public hearings could be avoided.  The Liberal-dominated committee gave 159 special 
interest groups $4 million to appear before the committee and called it "consultation."  We call it, 
"tales from the trough."
	The Liberals could have opened the process giving preference to individuals unaffiliated 
with a special interest group.  As a committee, we could have discovered what ordinary Canadians 
think.  Instead, the committee heard what 159 special interest groups think.  We aren't convinced 
that their contributions were worth $4 million of taxpayers' money.
	We find it hard to accept the claim of the majority report that the Standing Committee on 
Human Resources Development has anything approaching a firm grip on what Canadians really 
think.

SECTION 2: 		A LACK OF SCOPE
	The entire social program review process, starting with Minister Axworthy's discussion 
paper or "Green Book" and ending with the report of this committee, has been far too narrow. Some 
of the most important programs -- notably Old Age Security (OAS), Canada Pension Plan (CPP) 
and health care, have been completely excluded from the review. Separate reviews have been 
established, but they have their own reporting schedules. In the case of the health care review, the 
report date is so far in the future that no reforms will be acted upon before the next election. 
	It is difficult not to notice that the programs that have not been reviewed are precisely the 
ones that Canadians regard as most vital to their well-being. We agree with Sherri Torjman of the 
Caledon Institute when she writes of the Green Book, "[It] is severely limited by the fact that it 
presents no bold vision or clear plan for how Canada should address the issue of personal supports 
for the elderly -- the one in five Canadians who will be over age 65 by the year 2010 .  We are left 
with the impression that the government is suffering from the illusion that the best way to protect 
our most important programs is to avoid discussing them."
	We find this head-in-the-sand attitude to be inexcusable. Canada's federally-administered 
social programs, including the ones left out of this review, consume two-thirds of that portion of the 
federal budget that is not consumed by interest payments. Our party's "Zero-in-Three" deficit 
elimination program shows that even if all other areas of government spending are cut back by 
more than a quarter, social programs will have to bear reductions in the order of $15 billion. To 
avoid making these cuts while Canada is still fiscally solvent merely ensures that when cuts do 
come, they will be much deeper.
	We also note that cutting spending to sustainable levels does not mean gutting social 
security. Even if spending on social programs were cut by 20% in order to balance the budget, the 
combined total of all federal, provincial and municipal spending on social programs will still be in 
excess of $124 billion each year. This amounts to $17,600 for every family of four. And this does 
not even take into account the billions that individual Canadians spend on their own for health 
insurance, RRSPs, and charities.

SECTION 3: 		A LACK OF VISION
	Possibly the most disappointing aspect of this committee's majority report is its absolute 
lack of a new vision of what Canadian social policy ought to be. This shows up most obviously in 
the motherhood statements that fill the report, and which contrast awkwardly with an almost 
complete absence of fresh ideas.  The problem of sustainability is irrelevant to the question of 
success.  The Reform Party's social policy critics are reminded of the fact that by the standard 
employed by this committee, the SS Titanic was, generally, a success. After all, it not only carried 
its passengers most of the way from London to New York, but it did so in luxury and comfort. But 
to us, social policy cannot be considered a success either generally or at all, unless it allows each 
and every generation of Canadians -- including generations not yet born -- to make it all the way to 
port.
	The whole majority committee report seems to rest on three perilous assumptions:

	1.	Governments create jobs through ever-increasing public spending;

	2.	A government monopoly over the provision of all social and personal security 	
	services is the best means of meeting the needs of the old, the sick, the 	
	unemployed, and the poor;
		
	3.	Ever-increasing government deficits and debts are justifiable if they are incurred 	
	in the pursuit of job creation and social security.

	These assumptions are implicit in the Liberal government's Red Book and in the first 
budget of the Chrétien government. But the evidence that these assumptions are invalid is now 
more overwhelming than ever. Government spending is now at record levels in Canada, yet over a 
million Canadians remain unemployed and many more are underemployed. If increased 
government spending is the key to job creation, Canada should have one of the lowest, not one of 
the highest, unemployment rates among industrialized countries. It has been noted that if more 
government spending were all that was needed to create jobs, every Canadian would have several 
of them by now.
	Canadians have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in establishing publicly-financed, 
universal, government-operated, social security programs for the elderly, the ill, the unemployed, 
and the poor. Yet all of these programs are now in financial difficulty, with costs rising and services 
being curtailed, so that Canadians, who have been deprived -- thanks to our high taxes--of the 
means by which to provide for their own security needs independent of government assistance, can 
no longer count on these state-run programs to be solvent in the future. Dependence on state-run 
social security has become a growing source of personal insecurity. 
	For this reason we are disappointed by the failure of the committee to recommend in the 
strongest possible terms that the government preserve the integrity and tax-free status of RRSPs 
and the private pension system, which remains the only part of the Canadian social security system 
that is completely solvent.
	It should come as no surprise -- given the committee's lack of genuine consultation, scope 
and vision in addressing Canada's social policy -- that the recommendations of the Standing 
Committee on Human Resources Development (HRD) prove thoroughly disappointing.  Moreover, 
the Liberal members of the HRD committee base their recommendations on flawed principles, 
misinterpret the problems, and don't adequately think through the consequences of their policy 
recommendations.
	They assume that government can supply the personal security needs of Canadians better 
than individuals.  This "big-brother-knows-best" approach is not only false but offensive.  One need 
not look far to recognize that this ivory-tower, bureaucratic model for meeting individual needs has 
failed miserably.  A new approach is needed desperately.
	This report takes the encroachment of government on people's lives to new heights.  It 
encourages government to displace parental responsibility in the raising of children.  Instead, 
government should provide the framework within which parents can meet their children's needs.  
Under criminal and common law, parents hold constitutional responsibility to care for their 
children.  Government ought not to take parents responsibility, for child care away from them.
	The committee also assumes that improving social programs requires more money and that 
without further spending nothing can be accomplished.  That is false.  Canadians spend billions and 
billions of dollars on an assortment of social programs.  The need is not for more money, but for 
proper management and targeting of existing funds to those truly in need.
	In any case, more money for any program is not an option.  As Minister Axworthy has 
finally been forced to acknowledge, this government has no choice but to begin dealing with the 
nation's deficit and debt.
	What was intended as a system based on the virtue of generosity has become a system of 
entitlements and confiscation.  The Liberal recommendations simply reinforce the entitlement 
mentality.  What's more, they create expectations for entitlements that cannot be met.  All such 
deception does is to create resentment between Canadians -- those concerned with the cost and 
abuse of social programs and those who feel entitled to more.
	Noble notions of equity and equality are at the heart of a significant number of the 
committee's recommendations.  However, research indicates that the very schemes intended to 
promote the welfare of people are shown time and again not to serve the interests of those they are 
supposed to help:  women, visible, ethnic minorities, Aboriginal people, and the disabled.
	When people are hired or promoted for characteristics other than merit, their self-esteem is 
damaged, bringing stress, self-doubt and a loss of confidence in their own ability.  Promotion 
according to special status creates friction among coworkers and, in principle, works against the 
very equality it espouses.
	The Liberal members of the committee rely not only on inconsistent principles, but also 
misinterpret the problems they claim to address.  The most flagrant example is in the area of child 
poverty.  They claim that "close to one-fifth of our nation's children are living below the 
Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO)."
	Not everyone is aware, however, that LICO is "a relative measure."  It is geared to relative 
living standards.  As living standards rise overall, the so-called poverty line rises as well.  
According to this standard, the only way out of relative poverty is to improve one's position with 
respect to everyone else.  Under such a measure, it is impossible to eliminate poverty because 
there will always be one-fifth of income-earners at the bottom of the scale.  Even if all incomes 
were to double, the percentage of Canadians below the cut-off point would remain the same.  
Poverty is redefined in relative terms, not in real terms.  Understood in real terms, poverty has to do 
with lacking food, clothing, or shelter.  For many families below the LICO measure, if their 
children are without food or clothing, it may be for reasons other than a low family income.
	The social consequences of expanded child care as promised in the Liberal Red Book are 
also reason for concern.  Again, recent research has raised concern about the socio-emotional 
development, behavioural adjustment and cognitive development of children subjected to extended, 
non-parental, child care.  The social consequences of such developmental problems are increased 
likelihood of clinical depression, propensity to commit crime, and personal stress.  Those are the 
immediate consequences.  Long term, such conditions would lead to an increased demand for 
government-provided social services and law enforcement.  These concerns should be addressed 
before governments invest enormous resources in non-parental, child care.
	The committee expresses concern about the problems of family structure, single-parent 
families, common-law unions, two-income families and the needs of young families, but fails to 
recognize the causes of such disturbing trends.  Instead, they focus on symptoms rather than causes.  
The report fails to recognize that these problems are in part a direct result of harmful government 
policies in the first place.
	During the committee hearings it was suggested that overtime ought to be more tightly 
regulated.  The presumption is that people who want to work hard are taking jobs out of the 
economy.  That is wrong-headed.  People working hard doesn't result in a net job loss.  
Inappropriate government intervention results in a net job loss.
	Finally, the committee fails to consider the long-term consequences of some policy 
recommendations.  One of the more controversial recommendations is for the extension of the 
Child Tax Benefit to mothers upon certification of pregnancy by a qualified physician.  Such a 
proposal would seem ripe for abuse by those who suffer a miscarriage or terminate a pregnancy 
through abortion.
	Canada doesn't need more money for social programs.  What Canada needs is an infusion of 
new ideas and options as to how we might best reconstruct social programs.  Canada needs a new 
vision.

     Sherri Torjman, "Is CAP in Need of Assistance?" in Keith Banting and Kenneth Battle (eds.), A 
New Social Vision for Canada?  Kingston, Ontario:  Queen's University School of Policy Studies 
and the Caledon Institute, 1994, p. 111.

Brad Farquhar, Special Assistant
Office of the Reform Party House Leader     Tel (613) 995-7226
Room 531-C, Centre Block                    Fax (613) 943-0485
House of Commons                            [email-masked]
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

I am not an official spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada

~Xref: utcsri can.gov.general:263 can.politics:67222
Path: utcsri!utnut!nott!netfs.dnd.ca!srv.gc.ca!parl2.parl.gc.ca!Reflead_pc!hermae
~From: [email-masked] (Reform House Leader's Office)
~Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.politics
~Subject: Reform Dissenting Report on HRD - Part 3
~Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:06:53 UNDEFINED
Organization: House of Commons
~Lines: 201
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.32.178.12
Keywords: reform
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]

PART II: 	REFORM'S VISION -- PROVIDING BETTER 
		PERSONAL SECURITY FOR CANADIANS IN THE LONG TERM

Section 4: 	A PRELIMINARY RESPONSE FROM THE GRASSROOTS
	Because of our disagreement with Minister of Human Resources Development's decision to 
limit the scope of this committee's supposedly wide-ranging review to only a some of its social 
programs, Reform MPs made the decision to initiate our own consultative process directed at 
ordinary Canadians. Reformers designed and distributed our own tabloid-size information 
"broadsheet" describing the minister's limited range of proposals and also alternatives proposed by 
Canadian social policy experts and organizations, as well as social policy alternatives that have 
been successfully employed in other countries worldwide. This broadsheet dealt with all of 
Canada's major social programs, including health care and pensions. 
	Respondents were asked to select their preferred alternative from among those laid out in 
the broadsheet, or provide us with their own ideas. Over 300,000 broadsheets were distributed 
throughout the country. 
	Additionally, Reform MPs conducted a significant number of "town hall meetings," 
workshops, cable TV shows and radio phone-in shows to solicit the views of their constituents on 
the reform of social programs. The Reform Party of Canada conducted an internal survey of 
100,000 members to solicit their views on social programs reform.  As this report is being written, 
Reform MPs are still actively involved in this consultation process with Canadians.  So far, 
thousands of Canadians have expressed their perspectives and opinions on the reform of social 
programs.
1)	What Canadians told us about the philosophy of social policy reform
	The preliminary results of our consultations have helped us to develop the guiding 
principles for social program reform that are outlined in Section Six of this report.  Almost all the 
Reform Party members who have returned their survey forms to date agree with the following two 
statements: 
	(1) "As a general principle, social program reform should focus on giving people the 
	tools to provide for their own needs through such initiatives as personal RRSPs, 
	registered unemployment savings plans, and tax-sheltered savings accounts for education 
	and training", and 
	(2) "As a general principle, where governments must be involved in delivering social 
	services, those programs should be directed by the levels of government closest to the 
	people (i.e. municipal and provincial, rather than federal)."
	In addition to their views on the reform of social programs, Canadians also told us a few 
things about the upcoming budget. There is widespread support for Reform's position that the 
budget should be balanced over a three year period and that this should be accomplished by cutting 
government spending, not by raising taxes.

2)	What Canadians Recommend: Specific Program Changes

GIS:	Strong support has been expressed for the following measures: (1) Continuation of 
means-testing; (2) Increasing the age of eligibility.

OAS:	Support for the following options: (1) Elimination of OAS for seniors with above-average 
incomes; (2) "Clawback" from seniors with above average incomes; (3) Converting all Old Age 
Pensions into the Guaranteed Income Supplement which is already "means-tested", and (4) 
Increasing the age of eligibility.

CPP:	Strong support was expressed for: (1) Replacing CPP with mandatory RRSPs for younger 
Canadians; and (2) Eliminating mandatory retirement to allow people to continue working past age 
65, combined with raising the age of eligibility.

CTB:	Support seems to exist for: (1) Limiting the Child Tax Benefit to families with incomes 
below the national average; (2) Giving more to children in poor families and less to everyone else; 
and (3) better enforcement of child support payments.

UIC:	Strong support for the following changes: (1) Return UI to its original function as a true 
insurance program, and (2) The "radical disentanglement" option proposed by the CD Howe 
Institute, which would eliminate all regional and non-insurance components of UIC, thereby saving 
$5.5 billion each year.

EPF (Educational Component): Strong support was expressed for: (1) A federal role in ensuring 
adequate funding for post-secondary education; (2) A voucher system for distributing 
post-secondary funding directly to students rather than to provincial governments; (3) The creation 
of registered education savings plans. There was also support for a system of Income Contingent 
Loan Repayment for post-secondary students.

EPF (Health Component): There was strong support for allowing the provinces much greater 
flexibility in the provision of health services, while keeping national standards that maintain core 
services. There was near-universal support for the principle that no Canadian should be denied 
adequate health care by reason of inability to pay.

CAP:  "Welfare" is already a constitutional, provincial, administrative responsibility.  There was 
support for completely phasing out the Canada Assistance Plan by turning over the necessary 
taxation powers to the provinces, while eliminating cash transfers from Ottawa. There was strong 
support for the concept that welfare recipients should be required to contribute to the economy in 
some way.

Equalization:  Respondents expressed strong support for the elimination of equalization payments 
to the provinces -- even though we noted that this principle is enshrined in the Constitution. There 
was also solid support for the Australian equalization payment model, in which total levels of 
equalization are set in advance and this amount is then divided among have-not jurisdictions 
according to a negotiated formula. 

	Reform's bottom line is people.  Surely most people want the best form of personal security:  
a well-paying, productive job.  That and the security of a sound health care plan, adequate resources 
for retirement, and something to fall back on in the event of job loss, injury, or extended illness.
	Canada's social safety net stretches to the limit to do things that it was not designed to do.  
Instead of serving as the last line of defence supplementing existing community and family support, 
it is a socio-economic catch-all and a social engineering machine. A top-heavy bureaucracy and 
interest on federal debt siphon off tax dollars from Canadians.
	The Reform party believes that the current economic situation offers Canadians a unique 
opportunity to reinvent its social policies.  It is time to restore balance: to our social safety net; to 
our national ledger; and between government intervention and individual responsibility.

Section 5:		A LOOK AT A WORLD OF GOOD IDEAS
	The problems faced by Canadians as we attempt to restructure our social programs for the 
1990's and into the twenty-first century are by no means unique. Countries around the world face 
problems of aging populations, high unemployment, rising health care costs, poor targeting on the 
part of social programs, regional disparities of wealth, high taxes, and out-of-control deficits and 
debts. Some countries have dealt with these problems in highly original and effective ways. Yet the 
Standing Committee has displayed an almost willful refusal to consider applying solutions to the 
Canadian situation.
	Among the options that Reform MPs have found most interesting, and which we consider 
to be most deserving of further study for possible application to the Canadian situation, are the 
following:

Unemployment Insurance
*	To replace UI with personalized, tax-sheltered capital accumulation accounts 
on the model of RRSPs, as suggested by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and 
as implemented in Singapore.

Canada Pension Plan
*	In Chile, the local version of CPP has been phased out and replaced by mandatory 
	RRSPs, financed by a payroll deduction of 10%.  Benefits to the current generation of 
	retirees were guaranteed from this deduction, and all surplus funds are directly deposited 
	into each worker's RRSP-style private account.
*	Britain has paid down the greater of its CPP-style contingent liability by permitting 
	employers to opt out of the state-administered plan in favour of private-run group pension 
	plans which offer better rates of return.  A special surtax on opting out provides funds 
	to pay the pensions of the current generation of retirees.

Equalization
*	In Australia, the federal government establishes a fixed amount of money to be 
	distributed among state governments.  This total is then divided on the basis of a formula 
	to which the state governments have given their approval.
*	In Germany, transfers are made directly from the budgets of the wealthier provinces into 
	the budgets of the less well-off provinces.  As well, a percentage of that country's 
	federally-administered value-added tax is transferred to the have-not provinces.

Health Care
*	In Switzerland, health care is the responsibility of the cantons (their equivalent of 
	provinces).  Health care is delivered by about 270 private and public insurance funds 
	which must conform to minimum standards.  Membership in an insurance plan is 
	compulsory for low-income people, but in 21 of 26 cantons it is voluntary for everyone 
	else.  About 99% of Swiss citizens belong to a plan.

Section 6:		A VISION OF REAL SOCIAL POLICY REFORM

A System of State-sponsored Insecurity
	Personal security is vitally important to Canadians. Aside from providing welfare or 
pensions to that minority of Canadians who are unable to provide for themselves, the major 
function of social policy is to ensure that when the first line of personal security (a good job at a 
good income) fails, resources exist that can care for people through unemployment, sickness, old 
age, disability and other special circumstances.
	For too long politicians have maintained that personal security can be provided effectively 
only if it is monopolized by government. The end result is that social programs have become costly, 
bureaucratic, centralized and financially unsustainable. Canadians have been promised that 
government would provide the lion's share of their most important security needs. In practice, 
government programs have crowded out the traditional role of families, communities and local 
organizations in the delivery of personal security. Governments have also lulled seniors into a false 
sense of security, by encouraging them to depend on government-run pension programs that have 
proven to be financially unsustainable. 
	After thirty years of rapidly-increasing government spending on social programs, we have 
somehow been left with less security rather than more. Because of what amounts to medical 
rationing, one percent of all Canadians (approximately 270,000 people) are waiting for surgery. 
Canada Pension Plan is effectively bankrupt, leaving today's young people uncertain that they will 
ever receive pensions. The payroll taxes used to pay for Unemployment Insurance -- most of which 
are hidden in the form of unseen employer contributions -- have reached such a high level that 
many employers have had to reduce their numbers of employees. Moreover, generous UIC benefits 
offer a strong incentive to delay rejoining the workforce. These benefits, combined with the burden 
imposed by the high premiums needed to support them, mean that government-run unemployment 
insurance has become a leading cause of unemployment, as is shown by Figure #1.
   
   	[CHART OF UIC BENEFITS]

Our Guiding Principles
	At the heart of the Reform Vision of a Better Social Security System is a desire to empower 
individuals, communities and local organizations to both fund and deliver forms of support.  With 
that in mind, our vision includes the following five principles:
	
	1)  	Build on the Canadian tradition of self-reliance, recognizing the family as the 
primary caregiver in society;
	
	2)	Empower communities and charitable organizations to play an increasing rather 	
	than a diminishing role in social security;
	
	3)	Provide temporary assistance to people who experience short-term misfortune, 	
	while ensuring that long-term assistance is reserved for those who are genuinely 	
	incapable of providing for themselves (focusing social spending on those most in 	
	need);
	
	4)	Where government must be involved in social service delivery, entrust the 	
	resources and responsibility to that level of government which closest to the 	people; and
	
	5)	Ensure that we can pay for security measures without borrowing more money.

	These principles are based on the assumption that when people are equipped with the tools 
to take care of their (and their family's and community's) security, they will do it better than 
government.

Brad Farquhar, Special Assistant
Office of the Reform Party House Leader     Tel (613) 995-7226
Room 531-C, Centre Block                    Fax (613) 943-0485
House of Commons                            [email-masked]
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

I am not an official spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada

~Xref: utcsri can.gov.general:264 can.politics:67223
Path: utcsri!utnut!nott!netfs.dnd.ca!srv.gc.ca!parl2.parl.gc.ca!Reflead_pc!hermae
~From: [email-masked] (Reform House Leader's Office)
~Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.politics
~Subject: Reform Dissenting Report on HRD - Part 4
~Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:08:22 UNDEFINED
Organization: House of Commons
~Lines: 206
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.32.178.12
Keywords: reform
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]

The Welfare State versus the Secure Society
	Reformers want to replace the Welfare State with a Secure Society. In the welfare state, 
government assumes that people are poor, defenseless and helpless. Their security needs are 
interpreted as a need for an ever-expanding net of direct transfers, in which most of society's wealth 
is taxed away from those who earned it and placed in the hands of those whom the politicians and 
the bureaucrats deem to be in need. Aside from the obvious potential for arbitrariness and injustice, 
the welfare state eventually becomes unsustainable. After all, everybody has so many genuine 
personal security needs: child care, education, health care, pensions, and so on. The bureaucratic 
welfare state, with all of its inherent inefficiencies, wastes so much and misdirects so much of the 
money that it tries to transfer or to transform into government-provided services that people are left 
with their security needs unmet, or met only in the most slipshod manner.
	Government in the welfare state fails to recognize the obvious: not all security needs are the 
same, and transfers of wealth, whether in the form of cash or of government-subsidized services, 
are often the worst way of providing for these needs. Most Canadians are not poor enough to be the 
appropriate beneficiaries of direct transfers from government. What they need from social policy is 
a safety net. They need policies that will protect them from personal ruin if they become ill, if they 
lose their jobs, etc. It is impossible to eliminate all such risks under any system, but it is possible 
and highly desirable for government to provide a framework of laws within which such risks can be 
reduced. This is what the secure society promises. 
	Personal security needs can be divided into three classes based on the likelihood that any 
individual will need to use the security and on whether that need is immediate or will arise in the 
future.
	The first class of security needs is for protection against personal catastrophes such as a 
medical emergency or the death of a family's chief income-earner. Most people, most of the time, 
are not experiencing a crisis of this nature and catastrophes are by their nature unpredictable. This 
means our need for security against personal catastrophes can be dealt with by means of private 
insurance. In a secure society, government would establish national standards for various forms of 
catastrophe insurance and might give financially strapped people some help paying the necessary 
premiums. In a welfare state like Canada, the problem has been dealt with by means of such 
transfer programs such as Survivors' Allowance.
	The second class of security need consists of needs that will arise reasonably far in the 
future, but which are predictable. Most people will have such needs at some point in the future, so 
one can't insure against them. But one can prepare for them. Typical needs in this class are 
post-secondary education, non-catastrophic health care, retirement income, and periodic 
unemployment. In a secure society, such needs would be taken care of by means of a system of 
personalized tax-sheltered capital accumulation accounts. Canada already is a world leader in the 
use of such accounts for the purpose of accumulating retirement income -- through our system of 
RRSPs. 
	The way that such accounts would work was explained by the Canadian Institute of 
Actuaries in a report submitted in 1994 to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, which 
recommended examining such a plan as a replacement for UI. The report describes these accounts 
this way:
	A well designed Unemployment Insurance program would be one to encourage and 
reward attachment to the workforce. A capital accumulation program would 
fulfil this 	role, as this type of plan could be set up to deposit employer 
and worker contributions into a registered unemployment savings trust 
(RUST) account. This account would be tax-sheltered and invested at the sole 
discretion of the worker, similar to a group RRSP arrangement. This program 
would be compulsory for all workers and would replace the existing UI 
program.  This program could be coordinated with CPP/QPP to enhance 
retirement security .

	The empowerment and independence that such accounts could bring to individuals and 
families is strikingly shown by Figure #2, which shows the potential earnings of such an account at 
a typical rate of investment return. Based on this evidence, we think that the use of such accounts 
for all predictable social needs merits serious consideration.

[TABLE]

	The final class of security need is for immediate help for those who have not been able to 
provide for themselves. This is the proper function of charity or, in its absence, of government 
transfers.
	Empowering charitable organizations, community groups and individuals would go a long 
way to ensuring that those unable to care for themselves are provided for. There would probably 
still be a need to provide public assistance for those truly unable to help themselves. Such a system 
could be designed to deliver a sufficient level of income to ensure that nobody lives in absolute 
poverty. To ensure that those able to provide for themselves do not become dependent on a 
program designed to help those incapable of doing so, public assistance must be limited to those 
who, by reason of physical disability or advanced age are incapable of providing for themselves.
	Such system must also ensure that no one wealthy enough to pay taxes would receive 
assistance, and those who received assistance would pay no tax. To ensure that the marginal tax 
rates paid by the working poor would not be confiscatory, some of this assistance would have to 
take the form of a supplement to work employment.

Self Reliance and Family
	The first source of personal security should be the individual's personal resources. The 
second should be his or her family. It is a tragedy that many Canadians have come to blindly accept 
that government can and will provide them with personal security from cradle to grave. Formal 
social programs have largely displaced personal responsibility and family reliance. Individuals rely 
on government pension plans and therefore fail to save adequately for their own retirements. When 
children grow up, they no longer feel the obligation to care for their parents, since they expect the 
state-run health care and retirement systems to provide assistance to the sick and elderly.
	If RRSP-style savings accounts were to be used to replace direct government transfers as 
the primary means by which typical families could save for their own security needs, families 
would be tremendously strengthened. For example, families would be strengthened by RRSP-style 
tax-sheltered savings plans for post-secondary education, which would help parents to save for the 
education of their children. Young adults leaving home would still be reliant upon the aid of others 
to help fund their education, but those others would be their parents, not the government. 
	Another potential element in empowering families might also be to increase the 
deductibility of child care expenses, regardless of the method of care chosen by the parents. This 
would not interfere with the manner in which Canadians choose to raise their children, because it 
would not pay subsidies based on the type of care.

Empowering Communities and Charitable Organizations
	Distant, impersonal and expensive government programs cannot be tailored to personal 
needs in times of crisis, and are open to abuse. The best way to ensure targeted and personalized 
delivery of assistance to individuals is to empower local communities and charitable organizations 
to provide the third line of defence in providing for the personal security needs of Canadians -- after 
personal responsibility (employment) and family.
	The key to reinvigorating private charities would probably be to offer an enhanced tax 
credit to individuals contributing to charitable organizations or to community groups engaged in the 
delivery of social services. A revived charitable sector would mean that governments would not be 
the only source of the myriad of specialized programs for assisting Canadians in need. Instead, local 
communities could tailor their aid packages to their own needs. Local community services in 
Newfoundland could design their programs to the distinct needs of fishermen, community services 
in Oshawa could be fitted to the distinct needs of auto workers, and so on.

Decentralization
	Where government must be involved in social service delivery, Reform believes the 
resources and responsibility must be devolved to those levels of government closest to the people.
	In principle, this would mean a major shift in responsibility from the federal to provincial 
and municipal governments with respect to social assistance, health care, child care, 
education/training and cultural development. This would also mean a greater respect for the 
existing constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial governments.
	This does not mean that there would be no role for the federal government in these areas, 
but the federal role would be focused on working with the provinces to establish and maintain 
national standards, using equalization as the principal mechanism of bringing those standards 
within the financial reach of every province.
	The operation of the principle of decentralization can be illustrated by looking at the 
example of health care. The federal government claims to be the guardian of national standards in 
health care, which it enforces by means of withholding health care transfers to provincial 
governments when they do not comply with Ottawa's interpretation of the provisions of the Canada 
Health Act. Under existing arrangements, federal funding for health care has been declining for 
years and will eventually disappear early in the twenty-first century. This will effectively eliminate 
Ottawa's ability to enforce any sort of national standard. 
	It is unacceptable that the federal government should simply wash its hands of 
responsibility for the nation's health needs as its transfers to the provinces declines. One way to 
maintain and improve such standards in the absence of such transfers would be to amend the 
Canada Health Act. Meaningful national standards could be preserved and improved by redefining 
them to cover "core" or essential health services. A revised Canada Health Act could also recognize 
that under our constitution, the provinces have jurisdiction over health care and end federal 
interference in the administration of all non-core, non-essential services. This would allow 
provinces (and patients) more flexibility to fund these services as they see fit.
	We agree with this opinion, expressed by health care experts Jane Fulton and Ralph 
Sutherland in their book, Spending Smarter and Spending Less: Policies and Partnerships for 
Health Care in Canada:

	The public may, in time, agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care 
	should be guaranteed to everyone, the original Medicare model, in which everyone 
	received everything health care professionals wished to deliver, is not only intolerably 
	expensive, it is undesirable for other reasons . . . . Consumers should be allowed to stay 
	outside of the publicly funded system completely if that is their wish, or to supplement 
	publicly funded care with additional privately funded care if that is their wish .

	This would mean that a narrower set of basic health services would be covered by federal 
transfers. For the remaining services, provinces would be flexible as to the funding arrangements, 
as demanded by their electorate and as determined by fiscal necessity. This basically entails filling 
out the attached "Medical Reform Matrix," which is shown below as Figure #3. Filling out this 
matrix will illustrate where funding for "core", "non-core" and other health needs come from. The 
matrix has been shaded to show how we see funding for health care evolving in the coming years.

INSERT HEALTH CARE MATRIX HERE

	This matrix would preserve universal coverage for basic core services. It would ensure that 
no Canadian would be denied adequate health services because of inability to pay. Basic and 
essential health care services would be kept within the financial reach of every citizen, no matter 
who they are or what their income or where they live. 
	Our vision for decentralization would emphasize a better link between the provision of 
social services and the funding of these services. This would allow social services to better reflect 
the needs of diverse communities and regions across Canada, while working with Canadians to 
meet their security needs and living within our means.

Financial Sustainability
	Most of the measures outlined above would be fully funded by individuals, or dependent on 
fully funded local agencies or community organizations which would ensure that the programs do 
not become financially unsustainable.
	Any remaining government programs (health care, public assistance, etc.) must be designed 
to ensure long term financial sustainability.  This means that the level of funding must be 
determined not only on the basis of current needs, but also based on what can be sustained in the 
long term.  It must be based both on demographics and a realistic assessment of the possible 
number of future beneficiaries of the programs when they are designed.
	A personal security net that does not meet the criteria of financial sustainability will provide 
no security at all.  It will only guarantee that whatever replaces our current bankrupt system will 
soon need to be radically redesigned again.

Summary
	The Reform Party believes that Canadians should move away from the existing framework 
of programs and look for new, better ways to meet our social security needs. We also believe that 
this new way of doing things should be guided by the five principles outlined above.
	The greatest single danger to the personal security of Canadians comes from the financial 
unsustainability of social programs currently monopolized by government. Instead of providing 
peace of mind, these programs have left Canadians feeling anxious about their, and their families', 
futures. Only if we abandon the ideology of the welfare state, where all personal security provisions 
are considered to be the rightful monopoly of government, and adopt in its place a model of 
localized delivery and personal responsibility, can we ensure that Canadians will be able to enjoy a 
rising level of personal security in the future. 

     Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Submission from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to the 
Standing Committee on Human Resource Development on Unemployment Insurance.  Ottawa:  
Mimeograph, 1994, p.35.
     Fulton, Jane and Ralph Sutherland Spending Smarter and Spending Less:  Policies and 
Partnerships for Health Care in Canada.  Ottawa:  The Health Group, 1994, p. 210

Brad Farquhar, Special Assistant
Office of the Reform Party House Leader     Tel (613) 995-7226
Room 531-C, Centre Block                    Fax (613) 943-0485
House of Commons                            [email-masked]
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

I am not an official spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada

~Xref: utcsri can.gov.general:265 can.politics:67224
Path: utcsri!utnut!nott!netfs.dnd.ca!srv.gc.ca!parl2.parl.gc.ca!Reflead_pc!hermae
~From: [email-masked] (Reform House Leader's Office)
~Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.politics
~Subject: Reform Dissenting Report on HRD - Part 5
~Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:10:26 UNDEFINED
Organization: House of Commons
~Lines: 230
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.32.178.12
Keywords: reform
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]

INTERVENOR FUNDING

	PROJECT SPONSORS AND APPROVED BUDGETS

NATIONAL (49)

Assembly of First Nations - $50,000
Canadian AIDS Society - $30,000
Canadian Association for Adult Education - $29,500
Canadian Association for Community Living - $25,000
Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres - $50,000
Canadian Association of Toy Libraries and Parent Resource Centres - $42,340
Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres - $24,500
Canadian Child Care Federation - $44,000
Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children - $12,950
Canadian Coalition of Community Based Training - $38,000
Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women - $49,800
Canadian Council for Reform Judaism - $42,000
Canadian Ethnocultural Council - $50,000
Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation - $45,000
Canadian Mental Health Association and National Network for mental Health - $44,650
Canadian Paraplegic Association - $48,325
Canadian School Boards Association - $44,025
Canadian Unitarian Council - $6,300
Centre for Community Enterprise - $39,400
Child Poverty Action Group - $43,900
Child Welfare League of Canada and Canadian Foster Family Association - $38,700
Citizens for Public Justice and CJL Foundation - $45,000
Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations - $40,000
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples - $50,000
Council of Canadians with Disabilities - $50,000
Ecumenical Coalition for Social and Economic Justice - $40,000
Fédération Canadienne pour l'alphabétisation en français - $34,316
Generation 2000 & The Student Commission - $46,852
Institut canadien d'Éducation des Adultes - $15,000
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada - $50,000
L'Association canadienne pour la promotion des services de garde l'enfance - $43,990
Le Réseau national d'action éducation femmes - $40,896
Metis National Council - $50,000
Movement for Canadian Literacy - $50,000
National Aboriginal Network on Disability - $35,000
National Anti-Poverty Organization - $50,000
National Association of Friendship Centres - $50,000
National Association of Women and the Law and The National Organization of Immigrant and 
Visible Minority Women - $40,070
National Council of Women of Canada - $25,000
National Metis Women of Canada - $25,000
National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation and Congress of Union Retirees - $19,300
National Union of Public and General Employees - $42,500
National Youth in Care Network - $45,000
Native Women's Association of Canada - $50,000
Neil Squire Foundation - $40,000
One Voice - The Canadian Seniors Network - $37,500
Rural Dignity of Canada - $43,000
SpeciaLink - $22,600
United Way/Centraids Canada - $40,000

BRITISH COLUMBIA (6)

Aboriginal Women's Council of British Columbia - $30,000
Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia - $30,000
Social Planning & Research Council of British Columbia - $30,000
UNN Local 136/B.C. Native Housing Corporation - $5,000
Vancouver and District Labour Council - $13,450
Victoria Status of Women Action Group - $15,000

ALBERTA (9)

Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities - $30,000
Alberta Native Friendship Centre Association - $25,000
Children and Families Initiative - $13,820
Edmonton City Centre Church Corporation - $14,855
Family Centre of Northern Alberta - $10,000
Income Security Action Coalition - $10,000
Metis Nation of Alberta - $20,000
Native Council of Canada (Alberta) - $15,000
Training and Education Network for Women in Alberta TENWA and Alberta Status of Women - 
$29,650

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES (2)

Northwest Territories Federation of Labour - $35,470
Yellowknife Women's Society - $30,000

YUKON (2)

Social Development Community Coalition - $15,000
Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre - $24,052

SASKATCHEWAN (9)

Disabled Women's Network of Saskatchewan - $28,000
Downtown Chaplaincy - $12,000
People Empowering People and NAPO-SASK - $17,400
Saskatchewan Action Committee, Status of Women - $30,000
Saskatchewan Child Hunger Coalition - $30,000
Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism - $15,000
Saskatchewan Voice of the Handicapped - $22,300
Social Fairness Action Coalition - $15,000

MANITOBA (5)

Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg - $14,640
Canadian Association of the Non-Employed - $24,000
Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women - $30,000
Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped - $20,000
Metis Women of Manitoba - $25,000

ONTARIO (26)

Advocates for Community Based Training and Education for Women - $14,750
Conseil de planification des services communautaires de Prescott-Russell - $10,000
East End Literacy - $13,500
Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto - $15,000
Lakehead Social Planning Council - $10,000
LIFE*SPIN - $11,400
Niagara Mental Health - $9,500
Northumberland Coalition Against Poverty - $10,000
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty - $12,750
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care - $26,100
Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizen's Organizations - $26,500
Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association - $50,000
Ontario Network of Employment Skills Training Projects - $30,000
Ontario Network of Independent Living Centres - $25,000
Ontario Social Safety Net/Work - $30,000
Persons United for Self-Help, Northwest - $15,000
Peterborough Social Planning Council - $13,229
Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto - $20,000
Social Planning Council of Niagara Falls - $14,137
Social Planning Council of Ottawa - Carleton - $15, 000
Social Planning Council of Peel - $12,450
Tenants & Homeless Information & Action Committee - $9,400
Toronto Aboriginal Social Services Association - $15,000
Toronto Association of Neighbourhood Services - $15,000
Waterloo Region Community Coalition - $12,495
Windsor Women's Incentive Centre - $15,000

QUEBEC

Association Multi-Ethnique Pour l'Intégration des Personnes Handicappées - $15,000
Association pour la santé publique du Québec - $18,000
Comité d'adaption de la main d'oeuvre pour personnes handicappées CAMO - $25,000
Comité des Organismes Sociaux de Laval - $9,950
Conseil Québécois de Développement Social - $29,904
COPHAN et Table des ROP - $30,000
Corporation de développement communautaire de Brome-Missisquoi - $14, 600
Corporation de développement communautaire des Bois-Francs - $9,800
Corporation de développement communautaire Rond Point - $10,200
Entraide Communautaire La Presqu'Ile - $13,772
Front Commun des Personnes Assistées Sociales du Québec - $29,625
L.A.S.T.U.C.E. Du Saguenay - $14,066
La Ligue des Droits et Libertés - $24,600
Le Centre d'organisation et de formation des travailleuses et travailleurs en entreprise - $9,800
Mouvement Action-Chômage Montréal - $15,000
Mouvement Action-Chômage Trois-Rivières - $13,850
Québec Native Women - $30,000
Regroupement des Corporations de développement économiques communautaires - $13,250
Relais Femmes - $50,000
Solidarité Populaire Québec - $29,000
Table des Groupes Populaires - $20,394
Table régionale d'organismes volontaires d'éducation populaire de la Montérégie - $15,000

NEW BRUNSWICK (6)

Ad Hoc Anglophone Committee - $10,000
Coalition Chaleur pour la Sauvegarde des Programmes Sociaux - $10,000
Comité ad hoc sur la réforme de la sécurité sociale - $10,000
Grater Moncton Coalition for Economic and Social Justice - $14,600
New Brunswick Association for Community Living - $5,000
New Brunswick Coalition of Disability Organizations - $25,500

P.E.I. (9)

Aboriginal Women's Association of P.E.I. Inc. - $5,000
Lennox Island Band Council - $5,000
Native Council of Prince Edward Island - $5,000
PEI Coalition on Social Security Reform - $30,000
PEI Women's Reference Group - $25,000
Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour - $20,000
Prince Edward Island Literacy Alliance - $15,000
Société Saint-Thomas d'Aquin - $25,000
West Prince Alert Group - $12,000

NEWFOUNDLAND (7)

Atlantic Child Care Coalition - $30,000
Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador - $30,000
Equity in Reform Coalition - $30,000
Federation of Newfoundland Indians - $30,000
Gander Status of Women Council and Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Economic Network - 
$30,000
Iris Kirby House and Women in Trades and Technology - $12,282
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour - $30,000

NOVA SCOTIA (9)

Cape Breton District Labour Council - $13,080
Halifax coalition on Social Security Reform - $14,500
Native Council of Nova Scotia - $30,000
New Dawn Enterprises Ltd. - $14,000
Nova Scotia Disability Coalition - $30,000
Nova Scotia Federation of Labour - $23,900
Nova Scotia Provincial Literacy Coalition - $15,000
Second Story Women's Centre - $3,700
Students' Union, University College of Cape Breton - $14,600

For further information regarding this report, call Russ Kuykendall at (613) 
995-6289.

This document will also be available on the WWW.  Point your browser to:

http://chat.carleton.ca/~bfarquha/reform/hrd.html

Brad Farquhar, Special Assistant
Office of the Reform Party House Leader     Tel (613) 995-7226
Room 531-C, Centre Block                    Fax (613) 943-0485
House of Commons                            [email-masked]
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

I am not an official spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada