House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was need.

Topics

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do congratulate the hon. member for her address. She brought a lot of passion and eloquence to her delivery today.

I am just a little bit confused in my own mind and would like some clarification with respect to the statements from the member for Burin-St. George's. He said that we have had a basic system that has served us well. If that is the case, why then did the hon. member who just spoke say that the economy has to undergo major restructuring?

I would like the hon. member to somehow bring together those two statements so that when it comes to a question of integration and getting a system working again that this does indeed happen. The two members have created some confusion for me. Could the hon. member please clarify those statements?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind remarks.

I believe the programs were established and well studied at the time they were implemented. As time goes on, functions for a program change. When times are hard and jobs are lost, some of the programs tend to be referred to in a manner that did not need to be addressed when times were a little more affluent. This is what we are trying to address. The programs have been studied but we have to make sure that the abuse of the programs is addressed. When the economy is down it appears the abuses seem to go up. If we can balance both of them, our programs will satisfy both at the same time. I hope I have answered the hon. member's question.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Québec, I would like her to indicate whether she is going to make a 10 or a 20 minute speech.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker.

The riding of Quebec, which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, is a very special one.

Many MPs say the same thing about their riding, but this one, which is home to the Quebec government and the National Assembly, as well as the Old City of Quebec, declared a world heritage site by UNESCO, is, for all Quebecers, a sacred place steeped in history, from an administrative, political and emotional perspective.

I want above all to pay tribute to the people of my riding, and state again that I am convinced that the direction taken by the Bloc Quebecois is the only one which will lead Quebec to full economic development and nationhood. To convince everyone in my constituency of that fact will be the greatest challenge of my mandate.

The riding includes several federal sites such as the famous Plains of Abraham, Artillery Park and the Citadel, well known to tourists and visitors alike. It also includes a harbour vital to our region's economy, but which has been experiencing a significant drop in activity in the wake of the general slowdown of the economy.

I promise to raise again, in this House, the problems plaguing the Quebec harbour to show how a harbour, centrally managed by Ottawa which keeps all the revenues, and whose development is controlled from afar, cannot compete against harbours elsewhere in the world which are virtually all managed locally, such as those of Rotterdam and Antwerp.

Next to the commercial harbour, we find the Old Port, an important tourist attraction and recreational facility in which the federal government has been investing considerable sums for more than a decade. The development and vocation of this facility create serious planning problems in our area.

The fact the local and regional elected officials do not have formal jurisdiction over these facilities calls into question once again the whole issue of the inefficient and bureaucratic centralization of Canadian federalism, as we have experienced it in Quebec City.

I am sure we will have ample opportunity to re-examine this issue in the coming months and to call upon the Liberal government to allocate the sums promised during the election campaign, but bearing in mind the real needs identified by local stakeholders.

Aside from these major infrastructures, the constituency of Québec has a number of features that are not so well known to tourists and visitors. The riding takes in the most densely populated area in the region and as such, it is grappling with extensive social problems and with poverty.

Large portions of Lower Town and one neighbourhood in Upper Town present all of the symptoms of social and economic decline, namely widespread unemployment, tenuous jobs, dependence on social assistance and a host of other human problems.

Successive census figures show that the population of these neighbourhoods is decreasing. The average income of Lower Town residents in 1986 was $6,000 less than that of residents in the entire Quebec City area and in the entire province. The census also showed that in Quebec City in 1986, there was a difference of $7,000 in the average incomes of women and men.

The poorer neighbourhoods in Quebec City and elsewhere are feeling the full effects of erratic and shortsighted government policies, against a backdrop of spiralling taxes, complete tolerance of smuggling activities and the ongoing shameless waste of public funds, as evidenced by the annual denunciations of the Auditor General.

For members of the public forced to put up with service cuts and higher taxes, the price-quality ratio, as they say in economic circles, is slipping more and more.

As I stated earlier, the women who live in some of the neighbourhoods in my riding, like women in other constituencies, experience a unique situation, one that puts them at a disadvantage. Now is the time to take a closer look at the broader issue of the status of women and to ask whether this is a priority for the government.

This is the question that must be asked by women in Quebec and in Canada, given the threat of cuts to social programs. For a great many women, these social programs are the only safety net they have and the only way for them to make ends meet.

A number of studies have brought to light the abject poverty in which women live every day. According to a study conducted by Health and Welfare Canada, in 1987, 63.6 per cent of single-parent families with preschoolers lived below the poverty line set by Statistics Canada. These figures alone illustrate the problems faced by many single mothers who account for 10.7 per cent of Canadian families and for 11.7 per cent of Quebec families.

These are not just figures and statistics. We are talking about our sisters, our friends and our mothers.

Even though poverty is not the sole cause of violence, a number of studies have shown a correlation between poverty and violence against women and children. My hon. colleagues in the Official Opposition will agree, as will the other hon. members of this House, that job creation-by this I mean real, sustainable, well paid jobs that contribute to the personal growth of workers-must be at the top of the government's list of priorities. A partnership must be forged with Quebec and the other provinces as well as with the private sector.

Poverty and health problems go hand in hand. The more a family has to spend on housing, the less money it has for food, clothing and medicine. Statistics Canada reports that 57 per cent of single-parent families headed by women live in rental housing, whereas the same is true of only 37 per cent of men in the same situation. These figures cast poverty and housing problems in a decidedly feminine light.

Poverty also means a lack of money for child care. One has often heard women earning the minimum wage lament the fact that it costs them more to work and pay child care than if they were to stay at home and collect social assistance or unemployment insurance. This is not laziness but a recognition of the

system's inability to provide child care services allowing women to join the workforce, to ensure their personal growth, to upgrade their professional qualifications, in order to achieve financial independence and break the chains of dependency.

Mothers who want to work or go back to school or, as the studies show, the large number of them who have no choice but to work outside the home, urgently need government support. They will then be able to go to work secure in the knowledge that their children are in good hands.

It is difficult if not impossible in this debate to deal with all issues concerning women. We will limit ourselves to two aspects for now: child care and violence against women.

Let us look first at the issue of child care. The former Conservative government had promised Quebecers and Canadians a national child care program that was supposed to create 400,000 new child care spaces. This project was abandoned in February 1992. According to a report by the Conseil de la famille du Québec, tabled in May 1993, the Quebec government reduced by $94 million the money it was supposed to invest in child care in the last three years.

We also know that in 1988, according to the Canadian national child care study, more than 1,634,000 Canadian families needed child care services. In Quebec, 385,900 families would need such services for their pre-school and school age children.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to create 50,000 child care spaces in each year following a year of 3 per cent economic growth, up to a total of 150,000 spaces. Forty per cent of the costs would be paid by the federal government, another 40 per cent by the provinces, and the remaining 20 per cent by parents according to a sliding scale based on income. We find this economic growth-related restriction puzzling.

There is a crying need for child care spaces. According to assessments by the Office de garde du Québec, these needs amounted to 201,310 spaces in 1988 compared with 130,713 available spaces, leaving a gap of over 70,000 spaces.

The federal government has always trodden very carefully on this issue. It makes promises and then backs off. Some women's organizations and child care associations want a national child care program. The Bloc Quebecois will not oppose the creation of a national child care program.

We recognize that some provinces, because of their organic bond with federal institutions, may want a federally administered and regulated program.

However, as far as Quebec is concerned, we are firmly against the federal government imposing on Quebec families a Canada-wide program with its own list of standards without concern for our needs or our economic, cultural and social situation.

Our intention in this regard is clear. We are asking the federal government to transfer to the Quebec government its fair share of subsidies so that it can develop adequate child care services taking into account the welfare of children and the needs of parents. To us, the transfer to Quebec of all federal social and health program budgets is paramount.

Many hon. members and ministers have stated that the government cannot put its fiscal house in order without cutting social programs since transfers to individuals and provinces account for over half of program spending.

In our opinion, if the government intends to reassess, review, streamline, redesign or, in other words, cut social programs by dumping the deficit problem on Quebec and the other provinces, it is totally unacceptable.

Before thinking of cutting social programs, the government would be well advised to cut defence spending, to save $1 billion in administrative costs, by giving the provinces sole jurisdiction in employment matters.

We think that setting up a parliamentary committee to review spending in order to eliminate waste and duplication and reduce operating costs would be the best way to identify areas where there is still fat to be trimmed. We believe that the federal government must rationalize its own spending before reducing payments to those hit hardest by the serious economic problems.

The Canada assistance plan is the program through which the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the social assistance provided by the provinces. This means that 50 per cent of what it costs Quebec to provide day care spaces, as well as tax exemptions and financial assistance for non-profit child care comes from this program.

This program emphasizes the inefficiency of the cost-sharing formula which lacks incentives to improve financial management practices. Also, the rule of spending favours the have provinces. Because they have more tax resources to spend, they receive more federal funding.

In the end, albeit in the short term, we believe that there is an urgent need to relax the eligibility requirements for tax exemptions and financial assistance to help low and middle-income families pay for child care services without having to cut back week after week on basic necessities.

Now, we move on to the subject of violence against women in Quebec and in Canada. It has become such a widespread phenomenon that, even if it may sound redundant to quote more statistics, we feel the need to do so because the numbers speak for themselves.

Half of all women in Canada have been victims of at least one act of violence since the age of 16. Some 25 per cent of all women in Canada have been abused by their present or previous partner. Six Canadian women out of ten who walk alone at night in their neighbourhoods have reported that they were either very or slightly afraid to do so.

These few figures from Statistics Canada surveys on violence against women published in November 1993 draw an increasingly alarming picture of the situation faced by women in Quebec and Canada.

Clearly, violence has become a serious problem. Over the last decade, 600 children were killed in Canada. One third of these children were under one and 70 per cent were under five.

From now on, family violence against women must be viewed in a broader context so as to include spouse abuse. Thanks to the tireless efforts of women's organizations such as rape crisis centres and other shelters, incest is no longer a subject discussed only behind closed doors. We think that the lack of financial support for these organizations is most unfortunate because it jeopardizes not only their very existence but also the delivery of first-line services to women whose lives, in many cases, are in constant danger.

We also want to emphasize the needs of women from cultural communities, particularly newcomers, women with disabilities and seniors who are abused. Some women, often because of their greater vulnerability, urgently need support to break the code of silence that makes their situation so tragic.

While we notice a certain shift in the attitudes and behaviour of our legal system towards victims of violence, recent events indicate that other challenges need to be met.

In closing, I think that the need to alleviate the hardship of families and individuals in Quebec and Canada must be seen as an underlying principle in any review of social programs.

To this end, it is imperative that the government curb the deficit and cut extravagant expenditures without social programs being affected. In fact, social programs are the only social security net we have as we face a sluggish economy that has shrunk as a result of the irresponsible management of federal funds and costly duplication.

It is obvious that the government has not met the changing needs of our society, in particular with regard to child care. On behalf of all women, we ask that the condition put on investing in a child care program, which is dependent upon a yearly three per cent economic growth, be lifted. The government must release funds immediately and there should not be any constraints put on provinces that would rather set up their own program.

To meet the needs of women, we must develop a joint strategy of adequate child care, decent and affordable housing, abuse control, job training and permanent employment. Women have been waiting for a very long time.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, we have heard comments from the hon. member with respect to increasing spending on day care. One certainly cannot argue with that. As well we have heard discussions about not cutting social programs.

At the end of her presentation the hon. member indicated that the deficit should be cut, after talking about increasing spending, not decreasing spending.

My question for the hon. member is this. How does she believe that can be fulfilled, the cutting of the deficit without cutting spending, not expanding spending in other areas?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I talked about cutting the fat, but I also talked about increasing child care services to solve the problems that women go through every day when they want to go to work so that they can have some personal independence. I believe that the society which we represent here in this House urgently needs to think about child care services so that some women could be self-supporting. I am talking about cuts in government overspending. I think that women have waited long enough. Such cuts would really show the government's resolve to act quickly.

They talk about 3 per cent economic growth before they can invest in child care services; this may mean putting it off indefinitely or at least until much later. Women have waited long enough and I think that this year we should do something for them.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Quebec for the fine speech she made. However I found some inconsistencies in it.

She stated it is completely unacceptable for the Canadian government to offload programs on to the provinces. At the

same time she said the day care situation in Quebec will not be resolved unless the province of Quebec is left to do it on its own.

I always wonder when I hear these types of statements where the money is magically going to come from. There seems to be some magical formula that is going to generate some money to pay for these programs if one level of government gets out of the act.

We heard it the other day when the member for Lévis was talking about job creation: if the federal government got out of it there would be money to create all kinds of jobs.

We heard it from the member for Gaspé. He said if the federal government got out of regulating the fish stocks there would be all kinds of fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to provide a livelihood for the fishermen there.

My question for the hon. member for Quebec is this. How does she see the money being available to provide for the problems she has identified? Quebec is one of the provinces that receives money from the federal government under the equalization grants. By the federal government removing itself, how on earth is that going to create the money to resolve the problems she has identified?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is asking for the transfers to be returned to Quebec so that it can manage its own child care programs. We give $28 billion to the federal government; this is our taxpayers' money. I think that it is better to have only one level of government managing. We must decentralize decision making. Child care services must be specific to the needs of each province.

For the Government of Quebec, as with occupational training, it is the same situation dragging on. Quebec wants to run its own child care programs so that it can set its own standards. That is what we demand. So Quebec wants its fair share of the $28 billion it gives to the federal government. That is only one of the issues.

With regard to social housing, we know very well that Quebec is disadvantaged compared to Ontario, in terms of the fair share it should receive. I was looking at figures on social housing; we know that women are greatly affected by this program. In my riding, we have more than 4,900 single mothers and 4,300 of them are waiting for social housing.

I have a letter from the president of CMHC, saying that construction of social housing has resumed but that Quebec is behind in this new start-up of social housing. If we go through it issue by issue I think it is a good reflection of the Quebec reality. We have come here to talk about this reality; it is part of my mandate to explain in this House the realities that people in my riding live with. Child care services and social housing are two issues that I care very much about.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I realize that there will be some rather interesting debates in this House. The comments made by the members representing Quebec are sometimes understood, and sometimes not so well understood. However, I must say that this morning I was touched by the speech of my colleague representing the riding of Québec, because I think it is the first time that we hear a member who knows what she is talking about. My colleague represents Quebecers as well as the women of Canada and Quebec, and she reminded this House of the numerous electoral promises which were made.

Earlier, we pointed out that when members from Quebec rise in this House, some think that every issue affecting Quebec can be solved. We invite those people to come to see us and listen to us. When the hon. member for Québec said that we must invest instead of talking about spending-because sometimes we talk about spending even though it is not the case- when she mentions investing in daycare facilities, she means that the government must invest in Quebec and Canadian families. In that regard, I urge the members in this House to reread Hansard in order to better understand the messages sent, since the language barrier seems to prevent us from being well understood.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to create a sense of awareness. Very little is said about the situation of women. It is always a somewhat sensitive issue and I wanted to make members from both sides of the House aware of the claims made by women, and also convince them to be very receptive to those claims. I know that we are going through a period of austerity which affects all of Canada, including Quebec, but let us not forget that women have been waiting for a long time. There are many working women, but they need concrete support from the governments.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many fine suggestions from all sides of the House during this debate and I would like, if I may, to approach the matter from a slightly different angle.

We have been told many times and it has been expressed in many different ways that now is the hour of revision. We must examine the old ways and find new ones if we are to live within our means and still provide for the needy in society. We can never abandon those who need help. We must reduce our spending while preserving those social programs that have made Canada the envy of the world.

I do not believe we have to slash and burn. I believe we can retain the essentials right across the board if we define a new understanding between government and many of the special interest organizations that receive public funds. If those who can

take less were to do so there would be more for government to give where the need is greatest.

I have the opportunity to examine the published public accounts between 1991 and 1993. I have been singularly impressed by the way in which previous governments have financially supported all manner of worthy organizations, especially those specifically constituted to promoting specific causes such as organizations to preserve French outside Quebec, organizations to preserve English in Quebec, to further labour education, to raise the profile of women, to argue the dangers of smoking, to advance the cause of day care, to preserve minority cultures. The list is long for the worthy causes are many.

The difficulty is that most of these organizations rely on the federal government for funding, $50,000 here, $20,000 there, $30,000 here, $40,000 there. The money spent viewed across many ministries runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Let me give some examples. Understand that in doing so, I do not mean to disparage the organizations mentioned. All have valid messages. All have enormous commitment. All have hundreds, thousands, even millions of supporters.

Last year the Canadian Labour Congress received $4 million to further labour education. Other labour union groups received an additional $3 million for the same purpose. Meanwhile, to be entirely fair, the national headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce received $1.6 million. In every instance it is a lot of money. The point is the CLC, the other unions and the Chamber of Commerce have large paying memberships which believe in what these organizations stand for. It cannot but strike one as odd that the taxpayer is also supporting them.

The National Action Committee for the Status of Women also has incredible support, millions of supporters. It receives $300,000 in federal money with another $700,000 going to regional and provincial affiliates. This too is a lot of money. By way of contrast, the Girl Guides of Canada received $15,000, one of the lowest awards of hundreds.

Another example is the Smoking and Health Action Foundation, one of the most prominent anti-smoking lobbies in Canada, received $415,000 in federal and provincial grants. It received nothing from members. It did, however, pay $400,821 in salary and benefits to its eight full-time staff members. It is a generous employer.

My question is if an organization has broad grass roots support why does it not rely on that support financially? Why does it not appeal to the people who share its ideals to give a dime or a dollar?

The girl guides sell cookies, churches pass plates, political parties have fund raising barbecues and dinners. It would be a scandal for sure if the hon. members of the Bloc required federal money to finance their agenda of separatism. Are they any less idealistic, less motivated than the many other advocacy and special interest organizations that now receive public money?

There are hundreds of organizations, large and small, taking from the taxpayer when they could be, possibly they should be, raising all the money they need by themselves. My challenge to these organizations is turn your back on government funding. Prove to Canadians that your issues are so strong, so vital that like-minded people will get behind all your programs and they will spare that dime, they will spare that dollar.

The reality of today is government's cannot afford to finance organizations that should be able to finance themselves. We must spend on those individuals who are most in need, those who do not fall into some convenient catch word, those who are without strong voices and yet who are crying for help, the poor or the young, the tens of thousands under the age of 25 who are without jobs and with no prospects. We need to save money to save them.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by some aspects of the hon. member's speech. For instance, he used the word separatist instead of using the term sovereigntist. I suppose he is unaware of the fact that in international law and political science, the term sovereigntist should be used. There is no such thing as a separatist doctrine in international law, but that is not my main objection, and I imagine he can always read up on the subject.

What surprised me most was that he challenged the Bloc's eligibility for funding on the same basis as other political parties.

The hon. member should realize that Quebecers pay taxes like anyone else. This is what more experienced colleagues in the hon. member's own party realized when they decided the Bloc was entitled to have Parliament pay their legal fees in the lawsuit brought against them by a Mr. Aaron. The hon. member's colleagues are apparently more democratic in outlook than he seems to be.

Finally, the hon. member may or may not know that the Quebec Elections Act says that only individuals may finance political parties. Now that is democratic legislation and it is a legacy of a sovereigntist party in Quebec. And I would ask the hon. member whether, for the sake of the image of politicians and so people will realize that integrity does exist in politics, it would not be better for Parliament to pass legislation providing for grassroots financing of political parties instead of fund-raising dinners at $1,000 a plate at the Laurier Club, a Liberal club,

or taking donations from the wealthy who often have access to family trusts which his government is reluctant to tax. I would appreciate the hon. member's thoughts on the matter.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess my speech was not as good as I thought. Obviously a point has been missed here.

I did not mean to suggest there is something wrong with the method of Bloc fund raising. I meant to suggest that all political parties should receive support from the people, from their constituents, not from government. We would have a very incestuous relationship if the Liberal government were to be financing the Bloc at this time or the Parti Quebecois.

I must add further that the choice of the word separatism as opposed to sovereignty was a deliberate choice on my part. I actually did consider that very carefully because I am aware of the distinction and the distinction in the eyes of the Bloc, but I have to say that most Canadians they see the separatism rather than sovereignty. I am sorry.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech. There are many things in his speech that I certainly subscribe to and many Reformers do as well.

There are a lot of organizations in this country receiving grants well in excess of what they should be. Perhaps by listening to such a speech there is a lot of room for reconciliation among parties in today's Parliament in trying to curb this kind of thing and spend money in the right places. Perhaps in the next four years we shall see, maybe the House of Commons will be very much together on that issue.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he would define slash and burn of social programs since it was mentioned once if not twice in his speech.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer that very simply. Slash and burn is when the cutting of social programs leads only with the mind, only with head, and forgets the heart. We must remember the heart.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said in his speech that people should live within their means. Does that mean people who have little or no resources do not have the right to live? To hear some members of this House, you would think there were no poor people in Canada. I think we should not introduce reforms at the expense of the neediest in this country, and I would ask the hon. member to give us his views on the subject.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are beginning the reform on the backs of the disadvantaged. The direction of my speech was to ask that those who are able to take care of themselves should look after themselves and raise their own money. I think that applies right across the board. Those who are not in need need not be helped but we have to help those who are in need.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Ron MacDonald Liberal Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are able to have this type of a debate on such a major item as social policy reform in Canada. It is time we sat down and recognized where we have come from and the evolution of social policy in this country.

Most of the social programs and policies we have today which make us distinctly different from almost every country in the world have come about because of Liberal policies. In the past, Liberals, as a government and a country that is liberal, we believed in the collective ownership of the resource that is Canada. We believed fundamentally that it did not matter where we lived, in Alberta, northern Ontario, Newfoundland or in Ottawa, somehow we had a right to expect to share in the greatness and the wealth that is Canada.

We have developed a lot differently than our counterparts to the south. We believe in a free market system but we also believe that the state has a responsibility to redistribute wealth. We believe in a free market society but there are larger overriding priorities of our society than the accumulation of personal wealth. It is why we are different. It is why we have developed differently. We manifest our beliefs in social programs that make us the envy of the world.

We believe that nobody should have to live in poverty in a country as rich, as prosperous, with the future that Canada has. We believe as a nation that those individuals who are elected to govern should be able to find a policy mechanism to ensure that nobody should have to worry about whether they have food on their tables when they retire, when they are old and in their twilight years.

We believe we can come up with programs to deliver these policies to ensure that no matter where we live we have a right to expect quality health care that was accessible to everybody free of charge.

The federal government put in policies which by and large worked very well. Those policies ensured that in time of economic collapse or dislocation nobody starved to death. It made sure that we somehow allowed the free market system to work but at the same time discharged its collective social responsibility.

Times have changed. We find ourselves in a situation where government is no longer able to deliver these principles in the same way. Some people, such as my colleagues in the Reform

Party, might say the principles are no longer valid. I would disagree with them strongly. What may no longer be valid are the delivery mechanisms that have been put in place. They may not be delivering the programs as efficiently as we might like. In fact, to argue that the vehicles must be maintained may jeopardize the principles and the programs.

This is not just a Liberal philosophy. It is, I believe, a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. It is part of the fabric of this country. Who better to redesign the social safety network than the party that put it together in the first place, the Liberal Party. Who better at this point in our history to reach out and start it here than this new Liberal government.

We have sought input and debate from all sides of the House. However there are certain things we have to remember in the debate. It is very easy if we are just looking at the fiscal concerns of the state. It is very easy to get rid of the deficit. I listened to my Reform colleagues opposite during the campaign and they presented through their leader and their candidates a way to get rid of the deficit in three years. I could get rid of the deficit in 12 months, but it would be a vastly different Canada.

It would mean that the poor and the disenfranchised would be living in parks like they do in the United States. I am sorry but that is not the type of Canada I was born in and that is not the type of Canada I am going to work toward. It means that transfers to the poorest provinces would be cut, such as to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. We can say: "Well, we have done our bit as federal legislators. We have done our bit to reduce the deficit". However, the human carnage that would remain after those actions would be unconscionable and unacceptable. So we are not going to follow the Reform pattern of slash and burn on social programs.

As a government we want to have a full debate about what principles of social justice we believe are still applicable and whether we can develop the vehicles to deliver that social justice through programming.

We have to remember a number of things. One is that even in the wealthiest country in the world, and the country that the UN says is the best country in the world to live in, in spite of the multi-layered social programs that we have across Canada, we have over 1.5 million children who live in poverty. Obviously the programs and the goals we set out through our program structure has not hit the mark. The country has changed. Things have changed forever. We can no longer protect certain industries. We are into the globalization of trade.

We have to get back to the basics. If we still believe in the principles that I talked about at the beginning of my address, that of collective ownership of the resource and of social responsibility, then we will start from that basis and rebuild a social services delivery system, one that will have excised from it the abuses, or as much as one can excise from it, and one that ensures at all times we look at the dignity of the individual.

I cannot think of anything more undignified than somebody who has to live on welfare. I cannot think of anything as undignified as a man or a woman who has to go to bed knowing there is no food for their children to eat the next morning before they send them off to school. I do not think that is what we want as Canadians no matter what our political beliefs may be.

It is time to sit down and re-establish those fundamental principles. Maybe we will find they are not going to be vastly different from the principles that were laid down by this party after the Kingston conference in the Pearson era. We will probably find the fundamental principles of liberalism are still a basis on which to build. We will invite people from across this country, of various political beliefs, to help ensure that the systems brought forward deliver the type of assistance to those who need it the most in a way that is not a hand out but is a hand up.

Single parents in our ridings are coming in and saying: "Look, I am receiving $828 a month on welfare and I don't feel good about it. I feel kind of soiled. I want to contribute. I don't want to be a burden on society. But the circumstance I find myself in right now is one that I have had to go to a social service department". They then tell us that they want to work but the only job they can find pays $6 an hour. If they work for $6 an hour and have to pay child care costs out of it then effectively they have lost $200 to $300 of an $850 income. Those are the realities of the circumstances that are out there today and they have to be addressed. I believe we can do this together collectively.

It is important, however, to remember a couple of things. We have created a multi-layered bureaucracy to deliver the dollar. By the time I go to one member and take a dollar out of his or her pocket, run it through the system and then drop it back down to the individual, the individual who needs the hand-up not the hand-out, there is not enough money to do anything but keep them on welfare and stuck in the cycle of poverty.

Somebody somewhere has to be paid to take the money, to process the money, to drop it down to a program directorate, down to the province and down to the municipality. We have three levels of government taking that $1 and leaving as much as possible intact to deliver some assistance to somebody who needs at that moment. We have to look at that. We have to take a very strong lead, in my view, in trying to ensure that the dollars are not spent administering the program but the dollars are spent on a well thought out program that will allow people to maintain

their dignity, to retrain if necessary, to give the type of support so they become a taxpayer instead of a tax taker.

I am intrigued, and have been for years, with a proposal that has been put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. He has put a lot of thought into it. I have polled my constituents on it over the last number of years. It is called a single tax system. It seeks to address the real problems in this country. The problem is not just expenditure, it is also revenue generation. Unless we address both problems in tandem we still have a big problem.

To say we have economic problems because too many people are ripping the system off through social programs is wrong. I have addressed that. However, to turn a blind eye to the fact that we now have a growing underground economy and a tax system that simply does not work because it does not generate enough revenue, in a way that it is not a disincentive to industrial development and wealth creation, is wrong as well.

In the proposal put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood we looked at a number of ways to have a single layer of delivery so that those who need assistance the most get the most assistance with a properly thought out program to raise them up and reintegrate them into the workforce and allow them become productive.

I have never met an individual who wanted to be on welfare. I have never met an individual who wanted to be poor. I have never met an individual who wanted to feel they could not give their children the basics of life. I simply have not met them and I have met a lot of people in my life.

This is an ideal opportunity for us to be bold, to go back to the principles that have made this country great, but also to allow in this debate a broader application of how we deliver our programs. I firmly believe that the proposal put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood on the single tax has some merits about how we can deliver on a single tier, how we can cut out layers and layers of government and bureaucracy so that the limited dollars that come from the same source called the taxpayer are focused and targeted to achieve the social and economic benefits on which I think all members of this House would agree.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to sit through the lunch hour in order to listen to as many speakers as possible.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the suggestion that we sit through the lunch period. Is there unanimous consent?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his election. I also would like to congratulate the people of his riding for electing him. He made a speech this morning which is very pertinent.

This speech is quite consistent with the expectations of my party, the Bloc Quebecois. He gave us his point of view very eloquently, and I would like to ask him a question. Does he agree that the reform we are about to undertake should not affect disadvantaged people in our society?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ron MacDonald Liberal Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his complimentary comments.

I fundamentally believe that. We have to be very careful in this country.

The poor and the disenfranchised, and that includes regions not just individuals, are all too often easiest hit when it comes time for government to redirect finances or to cut program expenditures.

I always believed in opposition and I will continue to believe it in government that the role of individual members of Parliament is to speak up for those that lack a voice.

When necessary cuts come forward the debate will continue I hope about who bears which part of the burden of those cuts. We can speak here for decades about who caused what to happen. The reality is that our present circumstances must be addressed.

I believe that any cuts in budgets, any reworking of the social safety net must first and foremost look after the needs of the most disadvantaged in society but also the disadvantaged provinces like Nova Scotia and Quebec that have to rely on equalization payments from the federal government unfortunately.

We all want to contribute. We do not want policies from any level of government that stop our individual citizens and our provinces from developing to the fullness of their potential. That really is the challenge of government after all.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Dartmouth. I think we have a socialist in Liberal clothing over there. He talks about his belief in the state's responsibility to redistribute wealth. Those are the policies of my friends and colleagues who sit behind me as independents because their party was annihilated during the last election.

He talks about the redistribution of wealth and the social programs of which the Liberal Party is so proud. Let us remember that these programs were introduced back in the Liberal era of Pierre Trudeau and the just society, at which time he borrowed money and put this country in the position we are in today

to pay for these social programs. He redistributed wealth to everyone whether they needed it or not.

We can take, for example, senior citizens. The ex-leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Pierre Trudeau, is receiving the old age security even though he is reputed to be a millionaire. Is that the idea of redistributing wealth of the hon. member for Dartmouth?

He mentions the fact that government can no longer deliver these programs. My suggestion to the hon. member is that we should be looking at social programs which direct the money to those in need, the poor in this country. We should not be making general sweeping blanket statements of redistributing wealth to all those who fall into any particular category as defined by the Liberal Party.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron MacDonald Liberal Dartmouth, NS

I am happy that the hon. member has asked the question.

If I listen to the policies of the Reform Party it does not believe that government should try as part of a national objective to ensure that no matter where one lives in this country that one has access to quality post-secondary education. Perhaps many members on the Reform side, if those policies and programs were not in place, would not have been able to attain the seats that they have. They would not have been able to find themselves in a position to get the education that has allowed them to work in their communities and to find a seat in this House.

Just maybe, without those darned Liberal policies that the member seems to be so intent on criticizing during this debate, some individuals would not have been able to access a health care system that ensures that people do not go bankrupt if they have a ruptured gall bladder in this country.

Just maybe, if the members of the Reform Party are so intent on supporting a system where there is no sense of collective ownership of wealth in this country, then some of their colleagues from Saskatchewan and some of their colleagues from the other provinces in western Canada would not have been able to get the basic services delivered to them in their home province that Canadians and members of the Reform Party have come to expect.