Social Programs

To many Canadians, our social programs is what defines us as a nation, at the very least in relation to the United States. Yet in reality, Canada has one of the least generous social safety nets among OECD countries
So the question becomes how generous should our social programs be. I've already covered my views on health care and childcare and will later on education.

In any civilized society, there is an obligation to ensure that all person's have a minimum standard of living, which is why we have a social safety net. However, a social safety net should be about helping those who cannot fend for themselves, not about creating a nanny state or encouraging dependency on government. I also do not define subsidies to corporations, non-profits, and advocacy groups as social programs, so my opinions on those will be discussed in a different topic, although generally in most but not all instances I oppose government funding in that area. Below I will summarize my views social welfare programs

CPP

Having security after retirement is essential to one's being, which is why I support CPP, however with an aging population, major re-structuring was needed to keep it stable. Thankfully it can now last until 2075. However, despite CPP's existence, I believe where possible individuals should be encouraged to personally invest and save for their retirement. RRSP limits should be indexed to inflation so they will rise annually in order to ensure Canadians can enjoy the maximum benefits of RRSPs. I support the elimination of the foreign content limit. Some have discussed the possibility of allowing individuals to opt out of CPP, however my concern is the poor who cannot afford RRSPs would not be covered due to lack of revenue. At the same time CPP rates should be kept reasonable and should be kept in a separate fund rather than going into the general revenue as done now.

EI

Should one have the unfortunate consequence of becoming unemployed, I believe EI should be there for them, at the same time to prevent abuse EI should be limited to those who lose their jobs involuntarily and those on EI should not be allowed to use it year after year as well as they should be actively seeking employment. I understand EI is important for seasonal industries, especially in Atlantic Canada so governments should work to diversify the economy so those in seasonal industries can work in other sectors during the off season. Most seasonal workers would much rather be employed year round if they could rather than just seasonally. Like CPP, EI contributions should go into a separate fund rather than general revenue and rates should reflect the cost of operation, it should not be used as a slush fund.

Welfare

Those who have disabilities and are unable to work should be allowed to be on welfare permanantely, however all other individuals should be limited to 2 years at a time and 5 years in a life unless exceptional circumstances warrant being on it longer. This reform was done by Clinton in the United States and by the BC government. The idea of workfare may work for younger unemployed individuals, but I am still skeptical about its widespread use. However, it certainly has the ability to provide the best bang for the buck. However, it effectively prevents welfare recipients from actively searching for a job or upgrading their skills by enrolling in a vocational school or post-secondary institution. If implemented, it should only be for those who refuse to look for work or upgrade their skills, not used to the extreme as it was in Ontario under the Harris government. Governments should also allow welfare recipients to work whereby for every $1 they earn, only 50 cents will be clawed back. This will help people get over the welfare wall since currently minimum wage pays less than welfare and those who do find part-time low paying work are penalized. I believe those on welfare who find part-time work should get more than those who don't, which is why I support clawing back only 50 cents per dollar earned, not the whole dollar.

Homelessness and Social Housing

As someone who lives in Vancouver within walking distance of the Downtown Eastside, I am all too familiar with the problem of homelessness. I support a national housing strategy as well as efforts to create more social housing. In addition, provinces and municipalties should work to ensure more homeless shelters are open during the winter when sleeping on the streets can be fatal. Although I generally favour less government, I don't believe investing in social housing is a waste of taxpayer's money. I do however oppose rent controls as those usually create shortages if rents charged are below market rates. It is more efficient to keep rent at market rates, but subsidize those who cannot afford rent at market rents than to institute rent controls. For anyone who understands the concept of supply and demand, this can easily be understood. There should also be screening so people cannot abuse social housing, but at the same time the cutoff should vary from city to city based on cost of living, i.e. it should be higher in Vancouver than St. John's due to a higher cost of living in Vancouver. I would propose that the lowest rent charged in the city be used to decide who qualifies or not. Anyone whose monthly income is more than 55% of what the cost of the lowest rent is would qualify for social housing.

Next topic will be on agriculture, which the Liberals just released their platform on. Note that mine will be more pro-free market than any of the party platforms.