House of Commons Hansard #11 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was programs.

Topics

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments made by the hon. member who just spoke and who said that these are times of change. Indeed they are, as was also mentioned by the Minister of Finance during Question Period.

This is a time for change in Canada, with the arrival of a new federal government, but let us not forget that things also changed in Quebec on October 25, when three million Quebecers elected 54 Bloc Quebecois members to represent them in this House, as well as to protect Quebec's interests and give it real power.

The hon. member raised the issue of poverty. In 1980, the Liberals took 74 ridings out of 75 in Quebec, the hon. Roch LaSalle from Joliette being the only Conservative member. At that time, the debt stood at $30 billion. In 1984, when the Liberals were ousted and replaced by the Conservatives, the debt had risen to $187 billion.

From 1984 to 1988, the Conservative government enjoyed a strong majority, including in Quebec. From 1988 to 1993, Quebec gave a second chance to the Conservative Party. The debt, which stood at $187 billion when the Liberals left in 1984, has now climbed to over $500 billion under the Conservatives, and the Liberals are in charge again.

We just talked about poverty in this House, but it should be pointed out that each day the debt now costs every Canadian and Quebecer $108 million in interest. With these $108 million we could build social housing. We could give some security to our young people in post-secondary education and prevent them from dropping out. We could provide vocational training, thus creating something between the dayworker and the university graduate. We will always need plumbers, carpenters, electricians and other tradespersons. Today, more and more women are seeking employment in non traditional jobs, in construction and in industry for example. It is something we are very aware of in Quebec.

We have heard talk about poverty in this House and bragging about how we were going to correct the situation with the infrastructure program. The Liberals had their chance, the Conservatives had their chance, but red or blue, they are two peas in a pod, there is no difference. I am convinced that at the end of the mandate of this government, the Canadian debt will not have shrunk a bit. Despite all the speeches that are made, things remain the same. We have heard about the minister's speech, which cost $173,000. It is only the beginning, we will see more of that kind of waste.

A number of young graduates from universities or Cegeps must pump gas, because they did not get an education which would have prepared them to take over from those who were there before and built this country. This is why Quebec wants to take charge of itself, Quebec wants to be the master of its own destiny in the fields of education, manpower, health and municipal affairs.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Madam Speaker, I realize the clock has run out, but I would just like to suggest to the hon. gentleman, our colleague across the floor, that the federal contribution to social security programs in Quebec is $14.6 billion.

Quebec has a huge deficit. Canada has a huge deficit. We are now providing 28 per cent of all national funds for the work that has to be done in Quebec and that with these funds, with which I have no quarrel, we will be able to fix the situation so that our young people can find their niche in tomorrow's society.

It is irrelevant to ask today who did what about the deficit. We are talking about young people and the fact that they want to be able to eat and earn a living and get proper training for the future.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the Secretary of State aware that she has a 10 minute question and comment period?

Therefore, I will allow further questions from the hon. member for Gaspé.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Mount Royal. I agree with her and I am sad to hear her talking about poverty in Canada and Quebec since it is now affecting women. I am very sorry to hear that. I heard a lot of descriptions of poverty in the hon. member's speech.

However, I would like to ask her two questions. First, if we want to reform the social system or social programs in Canada, do we expect that we will have more poor people? Because, otherwise, I would have preferred that we used the time of the House to speak about job creation.

Second, I would like to make sure, through the hon. member for Mount Royal, the government representative today, that the reform will not be aimed at giving less money to the poor.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

What I want to say with regard to the member's first question is that with job creation I think it is very clear.

Job creation is a goal towards which the government is working at this time. Job creation has been the focal point of our Prime Minister's speeches. That is why we have been elected, all of us who considered in detail the Red Book of our party which says that job creation is our primary responsability. Both go together. If you do not have a well supported population, if you do not have a population that is in good health, it will not be ready and able to learn new trades, to change trade or to enter the job market. When you have a population that is working, the finance problem, the deficit problem can be solved in a better way. It is like a scale: one does not go without the other.

To answer the questions asked by the Reform Party, I must say that our goal is not simply cutting for the sake of cutting. Our goal is to improve the present situation, because you know as well as I do that people on welfare, people who receive different kinds of assistance do not find their niche in the job market

because they do not have the necessary tools and because our labour force was not trained to face the changes required by the job market today. And I hope that by working together we will find the right answers.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, since this is my historic first speech in Canada's House of Commons, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the Speaker's chair. Furthermore, I pledge my support and full co-operation to you and all of your colleagues who will be overseeing the proceedings of this House over the life of the 35th Parliament. Yours is an exceedingly difficult task. The eyes of Canada are upon this Parliament and Canadians are expecting reform.

As a rookie MP it has been my observation over the past two weeks that nowhere is change needed more than right here in this very chamber. Like millions of other Canadians, I am absolutely appalled at the behaviour of some hon. members. I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to do all you possibly can to help restore the public's faith in this place. I sincerely hope the decorum in this House will improve rather than degenerate further. It is up to each and every MP to assist you in restoring the dignity of this House.

To members elected or re-elected to this Parliament, my congratulations. It is my hope that all MPs will use their mandate wisely.

No maiden speech would be complete without recognizing all of those people who support me, for no politician wins by himself or herself. It takes a dedicated team working together to win. I was very fortunate to have the best team possible working for reform in Prince George-Peace River. For many of my supporters their commitment began before the 1988 election and never faltered-more than six years of hard work and effort. I want to take this brief opportunity to salute them.

A special thank you to Carol, my wife of over 20 years, and my three children for their ongoing love and support. To all my family, friends and supporters, thank you for this great honour that your dedication and sacrifices have bestowed upon me.

I would be remiss if I did not mention a man known throughout our riding and indeed much of northern Canada as Mr. Reform. Short Tompkins is truly a great Canadian committed to doing all he can to bring constructive political change to this country. I am proud to call him my friend.

Although the riding of Prince George-Peace River is famous for its pristine beauty, wildlife and abundant natural resources, its greatest asset is the hard working people who inhabit it. These people have sent me to Ottawa because they have lost faith in the political system in Canada. The population of my riding feels alienated, not only from provincial but from national decision making. There is a growing concern in my riding about how the old parties have avoided making tough decisions on social spending. If this Parliament is to address these critical concerns of Canadians, the attitudes of governments must change.

It is my belief that this reluctance by past governments to listen to Canadians demanding change is a reflection of the plague of political correctness that has infiltrated every segment of our society. If one speaks out against special status for one province, one is said to be out to destroy Canada. If one dares to question our immigration policy, one is branded a racist. If one objects to the legal system that protects criminals rather than holding them responsible for their own actions, one is labelled a dinosaur.

I call on this government to reject political correctness and to instead listen to the wishes of the Canadian people. We cannot create sustainable social programs and safety nets for those truly in need if those programs are built according to the politically correct agenda of the day. The government must consider what is good for Canada, not what is dictated by the media or by a few outspoken interest groups.

Will our social programs as they are currently structured be sustainable? Universality of access must be preserved. But if universality means a declining number of productive taxpayers paying all of the costs for all of the people all of the time, then certainly the programs are not sustainable. Reformers want to ensure that our social programs are sustainable and available for all Canadians when they need them.

In this time of economic trouble caused by a quarter century of government mismanagement, my riding remains one of the few bright spots where hard work and entrepreneurial skills are still rewarded. But even there it is becoming more and more difficult for small business to prosper and expand.

Small business today survives in spite of government, not because of it. Small business people are gravely concerned about the rumoured reductions to maximum RRSP contributions. If this reduction should become reality rather than rumour, this government will be reducing the ability of entrepreneurs in the private sector to provide for their own retirement while the pension plan for the public sector remains untouched.

As of December 1992 about $150 billion were held in tax deferred RRSPs while $110 billion had been set aside for the pensions of government workers. If the finance minister is intent on reducing the maximum allowable contributions of private citizens, then perhaps he should also be looking at

reducing the generous government public servant and MP pension plans that the rest of the taxpayers are helping to fund. The people of my riding are fed up with this double standard.

Canadians are generous people. However they are concerned about whether our charitable but fragile social safety net can withstand the increasing pressures being placed upon it.

Canadians are proud to be able to offer asylum to refugees fleeing political persecution and human rights violations in their home countries. However, is Canada's refugee determination system meeting its mandate? There has been some controversy surrounding the recent appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. While recognizing that many of these appointees have knowledge regarding issues relating to refugees, we question the current government policy of appointing persons from refugee advocacy groups.

Can Canadians rely on these board members to make unbiased decisions? In future appointments it is imperative that the minister places the objectivity and decision-making capabilities of potential board members foremost in his considerations.

Since the Immigration and Refugee Board began operations the recognition rate of convention refugees has declined from 76 per cent in 1989 to 48 per cent during the first nine months of 1993. Although there has been a steady decline in the acceptance rate of refugee claimants, there is still something clearly wrong with our determination system.

Like Canada, most other refugee accepting countries determine whether someone is a refugee according to the UN convention but they accept far fewer claimants as legitimate. Canada continues to have the highest acceptance rate in the world. Many Canadians are wondering why this is happening.

Recent refugee decisions have allowed women fearing spousal abuse or systemic discrimination in their home countries to stay in Canada. What will be the impact of this policy? Does this mean that every woman from countries that do not respect the rights of women or have different cultural norms should be granted refugee status in Canada? I certainly sympathize with the plight of these women. The solution however is not to bring all abused women to Canada but to assist them in promoting respect for human rights within their own societies.

I commend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's recent decision to allow refugee claimants to work rather than being forced to rely solely on social assistance, but the granting of work permits does nothing to address another problem that has outraged Canadians in recent months. I refer to the reports of welfare fraud by refugee claimants. It was estimated that the cost of welfare payments to refugees in the metro Toronto area for 1993 would reach $209 million.

The minister has removed one barrier for legitimate refugees seeking work but what is he doing to prevent the welfare fraud that his own department has reported? Canadians are compassionate and would like to open their doors to legitimate refugees, but this abuse is an unacceptable drain on our already overburdened social programs.

In conclusion it is my fervent hope that this government listens carefully to the people, as government members have indicated today they are willing to do, and responds by restructuring social programs in ways that make sense to Canadians.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Broadview—Greenwood Ontario

Liberal

Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say there were some aspects of the hon. member's maiden address which I really appreciated and support, especially those areas relating to support for small business.

However, I have to deal with this issue of women who are victims of violence not being considered as bona fide refugees in our country. I have to make sure I understand the member correctly. Is the hon. member suggesting that if a mother and children who might be fortunate enough to get to our country and claim refugee status that part of the reason-

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Simultaneous interpretation is not working.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We will look into the problem.

The interpretation is not working. We will wait until it comes back on.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Madam Speaker, could I please have the time to rephrase my question?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Agreed.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want clarification on the issue of women and children as victims of violence.

If a mother and child come to this country and in claiming refugee status they claim that one of the reasons they want to stay here is because they are victims of violence, if they have categorical proof that they are victims of violence, is the hon. member suggesting that we should deport them back to that violent situation?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

January 31st, 1994 / 5:25 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

I thank the hon. member for his kind words about my address. As to his question, I think there is a bit of confusion. What he is trying to indicate is on an individual basis. I was suggesting that if there is something in the culture of a third world country which needs changing, we should be trying to change it over in that country

and not sending a message to all third world countries that these types of things will provide an open door policy for people to be granted refugee status in Canada.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

To clarify a point, this is a very serious issue. In the last Parliament the issue of violence against women and children was something I spent a lot of time on.

Let us say a mother from Trinidad has provided categorical proof, whether it is sworn affidavits or telephone messages, has given concrete evidence that she has been threatened by her husband and if she were to return she might not only be a victim of violence but possibly murdered. Is the hon. member suggesting that in any way, shape or form we should consider deporting that woman back to Trinidad?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

What I was suggesting is that if it is the sole criterion for granting the refugee status and the hon. member mentioned in his initial question if it was part of the refugee process of seeking asylum. It is a different thing if that is the only criterion.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Prince George-Peace River. I very much appreciated in his speech the way he mentioned his concern for the people in his riding. He also recognizes the enormous human resources contributed by those who supported him during his campaign. Here is a man concerned with human resources and I would like to ask him the following: Does he believe in a Pan-Canadian employment policy with the same criteria from St. John's, Newfoundland to Vancouver Island?

If you compare, for example, his riding to mine, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, there are important differences; working language, training, industrial structure and manpower mobility. Could he tell us if he believes a Pan-Canadian full employment policy can be efficient and implemented properly.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry, the time for questions and comments has terminated. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. The hon. member on a point of order.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for clarification. Unfortunately, I do not recall the name of his riding and it has already taken up a bit of time. Would it be possible to have an answer to my question?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I cannot allow it. The question and comment period is definitely over; indeed it has gone on too long.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, let me say how pleased I am to participate in this debate on social programs. I would like to commend the minister for embarking on a path of consultation through the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that will allow Canadians the opportunity to express their opinions and suggest ways of improving social programs.

My colleagues before me have addressed some of the problems with the traditional income security program. I want to speak today about health care and health care spending.

Let me make it clear at the beginning that the Reform Party favours the preservation of adequate health services for Canadians. We believe that no Canadian should be denied health care for financial reasons.

The current level of federal funding should be maintained but we in the Reform Party believe that the time has come to make health care users more accountable and more aware of the actual costs of health care. How do we do this?

The Alberta government's public round tables on health summary entitled "Starting Points, a Recommendation for Creating a More Accountable and Affordable Health System", dated December 1993 recommends: "Other consumer education concepts should be considered to dispel the myth of free health services. For example, receipts could be provided to consumers immediately after receiving health services". This in my opinion would let consumers know what these services cost.

Under the Federal Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act or EPF as it is commonly known, the Government of Canada provides funds to the provinces to support and administer health services and education. The 1994 federal spending booklet states that the 1992-93 EPF transfers amounted to almost $16 billion for health care. Ten years ago the total EPF entitlement for health care according to the Department of Finance was $8.7 billion. It has nearly doubled in 10 years.

One would assume that the provinces would have the sole right to determine how to provide health services to the people. This is not the case. The previous government passed the Canada Health Act in 1984, eroding traditional provincial rights. In 1987 all of the provinces complied with the criteria and conditions set out in the Canada Health Act. This was necessary if they were to receive their EPF funds.

What did the provinces give up? They gave up all rights to charge for health services. We believe that the provinces should have sole jurisdiction over the administration of health care. The provinces currently possess the legal and constitutional responsibility to provide health insurance and services. Federal funding and support of such insurance and services should be unconditional and should recognize different levels of economic development in the provinces.

In 1991 total health care costs amounted to $66.8 billion. Put another way that is $2,470 for every man, woman and child in this country. Of every dollar spent 72 cents came from government revenues with the remainder coming from private insurance plans and individual taxpayers. We spent 10 per cent of our gross domestic product on health care in 1991. Compare that to 7.2 per cent in 1975.

Why have costs escalated so dramatically? Is it possible there is more illness or is it possible there is some abuse of the system? We do have a larger population and I am happy to say that people are living longer. We also have more doctors and more hospitals. In 1979 the patient-doctor ratio was 656 to 1. In 1989 the ratio dropped to 515 to 1.

We do have better access to health care but does this allow an opportunity for abuse? Is it reasonable to ask the Canadian taxpayer to pay for unnecessary hospital procedures, unnecessary surgery or prolonged hospital stays? Is the average Canadian aware of what these services cost or even the cost of a visit to the doctor?

It is interesting to note that in the last fiscal year interest on the national debt amounted to some $40 billion or 24 per cent of government spending while transfers to the provinces amounted to 18 per cent of government spending.

Imagine how much easier our jobs as members of Parliament would be if there was no national debt. For one thing we would not have those exorbitant interest payments to make. For another, we would not have to consider spending restraints for health care and social programs. That would leave us more time to deal with other pressing issues. In reality we are saddled with a $500 billion national debt and we cannot continue to live beyond our means.

Health care is threatened because of the current financial crisis and the effects of 20 years of deficit spending. The government has an option: return the rights and responsibilities of administration of health services back to the provinces where it belongs.

What effect will the foregoing have on our youth? What will they inherit? We have mortgaged the future of our youth. Canada has an aging population and the income support programs that those people have come to rely on are debt ridden. We cannot pay for them now. Therefore is it fair to expect our children to carry the burden of our extravagances?

The best inheritance we can leave our young people is a country free of debt, a country where they can obtain training and education so they can become contributors to Canadian society.

The Canadian youth service corps announced in the throne speech, according to the Red Book, will teach 10,000 young people a year work skills and provide them with valuable experience by engaging them in social and environmental programs that will improve the quality of life in communities across the country.

This program is estimated to cost $10,000 for every participant. I hope this is not just another glorified grant project, another stop gap measure. What real training will there be for the participants? What skills will they learn that will land them real sustainable jobs?

I was pleased to note that the motion before us today places time limits on the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development. We cannot afford to linger any longer over these problems. Now is the time for solutions. I ask that a meeting of the committee be convened this week so we can begin the consultation process without further delay.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the member for Broadview-Greenwoods.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Your question must be for the speaker who has just had the floor.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Very well, Madam Speaker. Then my question is for the last speaker. He talked a lot about social issues and a bit about human resources, towards the end of his remarks. Regarding social policy, he wondered if it would not be better to turn over all responsibility in that matter to the provincial jurisdiction.

My question deals with employment policy. Does he believe that a coast to coast employment policy, with uniform standards from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver Island, could be efficient when we know that the situation is completely different from one place to the next, in terms of language of work, training, industrial structure and labour mobility?

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the best employment program is private enterprise, especially private enterprise that is not overburdened by taxation. That would be the only make work program I would support.

Social Security SystemGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jane Stewart Liberal Brant, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Wetaskiwin on his intervention.

I felt compelled to comment on what he said concerning the Canadian youth service corps. The member needs to understand that these programs are just that. They are programs. As members we have a great opportunity to work with our local communities to ensure that the programs considered and used in our ridings do provide good quality opportunities for our young people.

To my mind, that is part of the role of the member of Parliament. I would encourage the hon. member to consider that just because the government presents these programs, it does not mean that the government does not encourage and want the participation of all members of this House to make sure these programs work effectively and efficiently.