Considering the ramifications which the policy on social security system has for Canadians, the Discussion Paper on "Improving Social Security in Canada" is really an old statement under a new cover. Clearly, however, far from hiding the brazen demand that everything must be done to make businesses competitive in the "global market," its complete failure to draw conclusions on the basis of modern definitions is distressing indeed.

Discussion on "Social Security in Canada" is coming at a time when the entire world can see what privatization and "shock therapy" has done to the countries of the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe and other countries in the world. Chaos in the economy, politics and other spheres is order of the day, while millions have been condemned to living in abject poverty and utter degradation. These countries have been sucked into an old myth that capitalism can provide for the people. People in Canada have also suffered as a result of privatization or the policy of putting the success of businesses at the base of the well-being of society. 

People in Canada, however, want to do better. They want to begin on the basis of the modern definition that they have rights by dint of their being human. The right to a livelihood, food, shelter, education and health must be recognized as a basic human right and the starting point for a debate on how to reform the social security system.

I am of the opinion that the old considerations on the basis of which people are considered merely incidental to the success of business in the "global market" should be put to rest. It has not worked in the past as it is clear that, had it worked, we would not be speaking about those who are the victims of "injustice and insecurity". The Discussion Paper pursues as its central tone the definite target of achieving success for businesses in the global market, while "decreasing" child poverty is only an aspiration and preparing Canadians for jobs is merely a program.

When the target is taken up to succeed in the market, social security programs become one of the instruments of this success, as was the case during the period following the expansion in the late sixties and early seventies. The logic that the artificial funnelling of money into the economy would keep profitability high began the regime of incurring debts through deficit financing. The Reaganite-Thatcherite policy of "fiscal restraint" did not change the situation in which "new funds" were released either through cutbacks or through privatization and, generally, by both means. Any effort at this time to generate "new funds" in the manner the Discussion Paper is suggesting will be calamitous to the economy and to the well-being of Canadians. If one child in five lives in poverty today, as a result of such policies, the number will increase, not decrease, as a result of present proposals.

One cannot but angrily condemn the notion contained in the Discussion Paper that the target of university education is merely to acquire skills to effectively compete for jobs in today's job market and that the costs of such education should be borne by the university students. Similarly, the idea that social security funds should be used to upgrade the skills of so-called bootstrappers who will have to keep learning all their lives, chasing the demands of those who are competing in the market, is equally unacceptable. Not only is there no mention whatsoever of the need for a top-notch education to raise the level of the society and prevent the high levels of illiteracy and dropout rates and low skill levels, but no consideration is given to the responsibility of the businesses which need the skills to foot the bill for such training.

One cannot but agree with the aim the Discussion Paper sets for itself if one looks at it superficially, that the "status-quo is not an option." But when it explains that social policy has to be adjusted to "Changes in our economy, in our families, in our workplaces, in our communities, and in the financial standing of our country (which are) too dramatic to allow us to tinker at the edges of social policy and social programming," it becomes clear that all the changes proposed are geared to making businesses competitive, which means precisely to keep the status quo.

It is being suggested that social policy and job creation are connected in the sense that a job is the best way to have social security. It is stated that "...helping people get and keep jobs" is the aim, even though the Introduction acknowledges that there has been a steady increase in unemployment. Then when we actually look at the proposal contained in the Discussion Paper, this means many things, from action to improve the business climate for entrepreneurs, to getting the government's finances in order. A centrepiece of improving employment prospects is helping people to gain and sharpen the up-to-date skills needed to succeed in today's job market." This is to say:

– help for businesses through handouts;
– more help for businesses through "new funds" generated by putting the financing of the government in order;
– still more help for businesses by providing them with most "up-to-date skills," which means making people pay for their own continuing education.

It is presupposed that the aim of the social security system is to tackle "social injustice and economic insecurity." However, the paper does not speak about the system which breeds "social injustice and economic insecurity." Should something not be done about that system? On the contrary, all the recommendations for changes are designed to save the very system which creates "social injustice and economic insecurity." From the early twenties of this century, since statistics have been kept, the tendency of the poor becoming poorer and the rich becoming richer has remained a feature of the system. This has been the case since a semblance of Unemployment Insurance was introduced in 1942. Basing itself on the flawed presupposition that the aim of the social security system is to tackle "social injustice and economic insecurity," the authors of the Discussion Paper create one illusion after another that this or that measure would fix the system.

As a starting point, the aim of Canada's social security system should be the same as of the economic system. In other words, it must recognize the inviolable rights of all Canadians by dint of their being human. What are these rights? The first is the right to a livelihood. As people are born to a society where production is social, it is a violation of their inviolable rights to demand that they must fend for themselves or that they should be at the mercy of "market forces." The notion that social security programs should target the "needy" is a flawed one. Within this logic, the most economically powerful are considered the "neediest" as it is they who must be assisted to become successful in the world market. From the other side, the disabled and the most poverty-stricken, those who are really the victims of the social security system in the first place, are not considered the "neediest." The issue is raised in the Discussion Paper of prevention instead of a kind of crisis management. But prevention can only be accomplished if the social security programs are based on the right of all Canadians to a livelihood by dint of their being human, on the basis of the standard of living they are used to and which the society has achieved. If this were recognized, the thrust of these programs would be entirely different.

Why does the Discussion Paper not want to look at its flawed logic which stems from ts rendering of the developments since the 1940s? If the period under question is analyzed without any preconceived notions, we would come to the conclusion that the capitalist system does not provide for the people. It is a system of injustice, exploitation and insecurities. Governments, both federal and provincial, incurred huge debts in order to save the system but it did not work. The same governments are calling upon the people to pay back the debts and decrease deficits by bearing the entire burden on their own backs, but this will not fix the system either. 

In my estimation, social policy should be based on the modern definition that the right to a livelihood is a fundamental and inviolable right which governments are duty-bound to realize. Starting from this, we must look at the entire social product and, after deducting costs, all the rest must be invested in securing a livelihood for the members of society. This includes food, shelter, clothing, education, health care, etc. Such a thing, of course, cannot be done at this time because the social product is expropriated not by the people but by those who the Discussion Paper wants to help succeed in the "global market". Not only that, but people are taxed after they have already been expropriated once. Then they have to pay UI and various other kinds of taxes. How can social security eliminate "injustice and insecurities" when the aim of the government is not this but to obtain "new funds" by cutting back on social programs? For instance, it will procure a great deal of "new funds" if students in higher education have to indebt themselves even more to finance their education.

It is extremely clear that it is the very businesses which want to succeed in the "global market" which need the highly skilled and up-to-date labour force. Why then should they not pay for it? Why on earth should the people incur such an expense themselves when the result will be to further the tendency in which the rich are concentrated on one pole and the poor on the other, with a large number of insecure people in between? If there is to be justice and compassion, why should the big businesses not be called upon to pay for upgrading the skills of the employees they require?

The Discussion Paper presents another dangerous notion which I think should be discarded at once. It suggests that "jobs and growth" would solve the problem of those who are at the receiving end at this time. The twentieth century has seen a lot of jobs and a lot of growth but unemployment has remained a fellow-traveller. Besides the Great Depression, a great calamity for the people, the present holds some very grave dangers in which old jobs are being lost at a far greater rate than new ones are being created. Businesses, giant monopolies, in order to compete, bring about technological and scientific changes for their own ends and they will keep an outmoded system if it helps them to do so. What is to be fully appreciated is that the scientific and technical revolution should not be equated with the problems people face. 

Canadians strongly feel that they do not exercise control over their lives. They are sidelined in relation to building the nation for the twenty first century. The Discussion Paper also sidelines them as they are merely given a role of having an input within an already decided framework. Far from agreeing with the framework of using social programs as a source of "new funds", governments should increase investments in education and the health sector as well as provide for those who are unemployed or unable to work. While the great sum invested in this manner will provide its dividends in a short period of time, it will also be a concrete step in the direction of changing the status-quo.

In my opinion, nation-building should be taken up seriously. A modern nation-state cannot be built without courage and a plan of action based on modern definitions. By putting the well-being of all human beings at the centre, a new direction for society can be found. The welfare of Canadians cannot be left to the mercy of "market forces". It has to be guaranteed. This will create the conditions for a sound and prosperous society. Far from aiming to "decrease" child poverty, the aim must be to eliminate it. It is the very programs as they presently exist which have brought one in five Canadian children to the brink of despair. The Liberal government should look seriously into placing a moratorium on the interest payments on the debt as the source of all necessary investments at this time. The government should carry out a detailed study on how this could be done and to what extent.

The government has so far rejected this as a possibility and choice. It says it has obligations toward its creditors. What about its obligations towards Canadians? When a family considers its budget, first it takes into account its expenditures on food, shelter, clothing, health care and education according to the level required by the society in which it lives. If its revenues fall short in terms of meeting these expenditures, then it claims a deficit and could undertake to borrow or acquire funds to bridge the gap. This is a concrete scenario which Canadians understand. Why does the government of Canada not follow a similar course of putting the claims of Canadians on society in first place? Is the national product not produced by Canadians through their labour? Do they not have first claim on the tax monies expropriated from them?

This is the issue the Discussion Paper glosses over throughout. It bases itself on a budget already enacted, in which Canadians had no say, and proposes to discuss how to get better value from the same dollar already allotted. According to the Discussion Paper, "reform must take place within the fiscal parameters required to meet the government's target of reducing the deficit." This cannot be considered a starting point for a discussion on how to reform Canada's social security system if the aim of such a system indeed be to provide Canadians with social security.