In closing, I want to remind the hon. members that social justice is at risk. It could be bearing the brunt of decades of federal government carelessness. This is no time to be reducing the social security net, as there is more and more cause for concern for the situation of the less fortunate. And for as long as we can foresee, we will always have to protect those who, as fate would have it, will not have the same opportunity as other people.
The recession that we are only now starting to put behind us has caused terrible hardship. Take the statistics for 1990. According to the National Council on Welfare, 18 per cent of the
Quebec population, or 1.2 million individuals, had incomes that placed them below the poverty line. Using Statistics Canada's own figures, Campagnie 2000 estimated that 1.1 million Canadian children, or one child out of six, were living in poverty. This is Canada we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, not some far-away country that we see shows about on TV at night. We are talking about Canada where 1,100,000 children are living in poverty.
At the same time, an international group of research scientists was reporting that Canada ranked second to last among the eight industrialized nations, with 29 per cent of single-parent families living in poverty.
Had it not been for our social programs, this recession would have irreparably affected these people. Can we safely lower our guard now? We say no, because the economy has not completely recovered yet from the last recession.
We also object to reducing the level of social protection while the economy is recovering because of the lingering risk of seeing the gap between the poor and the wealthy widen.
I dare the government to name one good reason for abdicating its role with regard to ensuring fairness. The fact that such poverty exists constitutes a major problem that all social stakeholders in Canada deplore, but this problem cannot be solved by attacking the poor, as the government is probably about to do, but rather by fighting poverty. And to fight poverty, we need programs that allow the underprivileged to regain their dignity and the courage to find a way out of poverty. To fight poverty, we need coherent social programs, not a maze of federal-provincial programs. Finally, to fight poverty, we need stable employment in areas where there is a future. But this government has no job creation program. This is one of the tragedies caused by frustration.
Here is a government which owes its victory at the polls-a very significant victory, with an overwhelming majority of members elected to this House-to a promise heard a thousand times, a quite simple promise but one of tremendous importance to those who heard it: jobs!
What is there to foster job creation? Two things. First, the municipal infrastructure program, which today is a vague measure and one that will lead to patronage tomorrow. Again, in Quebec, we are still waiting for an agreement to define the applicable criteria, which are still unknown. Yet, the government has started handing out goodies, to the order of a few billion dollars a year, this in spite of the fact that no criteria are established. We fully agree that this initiative could be useful and we are not opposed to it, but the fact that it "could be useful" does not solve anything and does not give it the stature of the government's commitment to introduce measures to get the economic job creation engines going again. That was the first measure.
The second measure is the one announced this morning in that speech announcing broad consultations, a major redefinition, as well as a restructuring of Canada's social security system, to revitalize the economy and put people back to work. But how is the government going to put people to work if it cuts into social programs? How is it going to put unemployed workers back to work by reducing their benefits? Who can believe that the measures announced in this speech will indeed turn the job situation around?
The government must avoid the easy solutions it is attracted to, namely the elimination of programs and the reduction of transfers to provinces. If the government opts for those easy solutions, it will violate its social contract with Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
Is it not intolerable that 725,000 employable adults are out of work? Of course it is. Is it not intolerable that 125,000 young heads of households have to rely on welfare assistance in Quebec? Of course it is. The government cannot let these people down until they find a job commensurate with their skills, their will and their wishes. In the name of that compassion to which the minister referred to, and also to avoid a deterioration of our social fabric, the Bloc Quebecois proposes three solutions:
First, in the short-term, the federal government must maintain at its current relative level the transfer payments made to provinces. At its "relative" level means relative to its current commitment, given the other expenditures faced by provincial governments. Let us not play with words; let us not play little games. Let us not say: We maintain transfers to provinces at their current level when, in fact, those transfers would be frozen. That is not the solution. The government must increase and keep increasing its level of contribution to those transfers, proportionally to the efforts made by the provinces, which are struggling with inflation, increased needs, and so on and so forth. By current level, we mean to truly maintain that level and not merely do some tricky accounting.
Also, in the middle term, we propose, for the sake of economy and cohesion, an in-depth review of transfer payments. Only one level of government should set standards, collect taxes and provide social services on a given territory. And Quebecers will never want to leave those responsibilities to the federal government. In other words, the federal government must stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
Sound management of public funds is based on the elimination of overlapping jurisdictions, programs, departments and unhealthy competition, which all lead to the wasting of taxpayers money. Such a measure is simply a matter of ensuring
cohesion. To be effective, social as well as employment development policies must be integrated. Every Canadian understands that.
However, for Quebecers the choice is simple: health and social services policies must be concentrated in Quebec. After some 30 years of making claims, from Jean Lesage to the Allaire report, it must be recognized that such a reform is impossible to achieve. The solution, therefore, is in the sovereignty of Quebec. Then, Quebec will have to make choices. It will be responsible for its decisions, its successes and its failures. It will have to perform without this safety net, from a political point of view, but it will make its own decisions. Conversely, English Canada will also be free to decide which level will be responsible for its social and economic policies.
I strongly suspect that English Canada, at least some groups, will largely support the measures which the minister is about to implement. Indeed, I truly believe that a lot of people will support this government initiative. English Canada has the right to choose its own social and economic measures. I also strongly suspect that other groups from English Canada will be concerned by the minister's intervention in a sector which matters so much to English Canadians. But one thing is sure: English Canada is like Quebec and must deal with the situation by taking action to meet its needs.
Third, the federal government must immediately implement a vigorous economic recovery and job creation program using the cuts made not in social programs but in Canada's heavy bureaucratic and military structure. If Parliament can operate with less resources, the government and the armed forces can as well.
I do not think that many people will believe that this bankrupt government, subject to continual pressure from the right, is not trying to take money from the less fortunate with this reform. Who will believe that this is not a budget exercise? The rhetoric of the department and of the minister, I am sorry to say, is the same as we heard last year from the Conservatives when they imposed their reform with Bill C-113, a reform which after some very fine words, as wonderful as those spoken today, resulted in a 5 per cent reduction in benefits paid to the unemployed.
The Liberals did not fall for that rhetoric then. They rightly and to their credit voted against that bill. We will do as they did and vote against the proposed measure.