Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Program Reform

[The Speaker]

I think that was the quickest no on record.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. We read in the document presented yesterday by the minister that the federal government intends to cut $2.6 billion dollars in cash transfer payments for post-secondary education.

Does the minister realize that by reducing cash transfer payments for post-secondary education to provinces, he will force them to double tuition fees, thus making higher education less accessible?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up one of the more serious misunderstandings.

Let me just say that under the present formula, under the existing arrangements, the cash portion of the transfer of post-secondary education is declining every year. It is going down. It is ratcheting down further over a period of time.

The reason is that the revenue is going to the provinces because tax points are going up. The provinces are getting more money each year. As a result that cash portion goes down accordingly by the ratio under the existing arrangements.

We are trying to say that before that ratcheting takes place, before that reduction causes the cash flow to disappear, let us take the money we have and work together to set up a brand new program of social assistance that will provide a much broader range of real support for students to go back to school, broader accessibility not only for 18-year-olds or 21-year-olds but for all Canadians who want to go back to school.

This is the whole idea of very important creative federalism and of finding ways of using the money we now have to turn it into three or four billion additional dollars going back into the educational system.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that besides doubling tuition fees, his reform helps to double students' indebtedness, as was confirmed by a Treasury Board note made public in today's Toronto Star ?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that tuition rates have already doubled over the past four or five years under the existing system. They are going up at the rate of 10 per cent or 15 per cent every year. That is hurting students right now because they cannot afford it. Furthermore it is providing a major deterrent for people who are already in the workforce and want to go back to school.

We are saying let's broaden, deepen and widen the amount of money available to students. Let's also put in place a brand new repayment scheme that would allow students to pay back according to the income they earn, not according to a flat rate like we have presently.

When students graduate they would pay it back according to their their income. If they had a high income they would pay it right back. If they had a low income they would take their time. If they had no income they would not pay at all until they got an income. That is what we are trying to do to ensure total and open accessibility for all Canadians.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has stated that part of the solution to child poverty is more government funded day care, a plan that would cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars.

Will the minister consider saving tax dollars and providing better child care by offering tax incentives for informal child care arrangements?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the green book he would see two very important facts. One is that 70 per cent of families with two parents are now working. That puts an enormous stress on those families in terms of their children, but they have to work because that is the way they get sufficient income. The second is that about 60 per cent of children in single parent homes are under the poverty level because their parent cannot go back to work.

A key to changing both those conditions to provide major support for working families, to encourage and give incentives for sole parents to go back to work, is to provide good, serious, decent child care. That is what the government is committed to.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we did something about the tax burden people are carrying they would not have to both work; they would be able to stay home.

The minister is suggesting that state run day care is somehow better able to provide care for their children. Does the minister not realize that another important option is to allow parents the choice of caring for their children themselves? Will he look at this option in his review?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, in the green book we clearly say that one of the major areas of reform that will be required is to look at how we can provide broader coverage under some of our security programs for people who are engaging in part time work, mini-work or flexi-work, so that there can be a lot more opportunity and availability for parents to spend time with their children.

One of the disincentives right now is that under unemployment insurance and other areas many of those people do not have any income security protection whatsoever. We included very specifically in the green book that we wanted to look at how we could extend coverage of security programs so that people could spend more time with their children.

That is the kind of reform we want to make. We hope the Reform Party will support it.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As the minister knows the three main industries in Atlantic Canada, in P.E.I. in particular, are agriculture, fisheries and tourism. These are all seasonal industries for obvious reasons.

Could the minister indicate to the House how he plans to deal with the issue of people who are seasonally employed? These people are needed, are trained and need UI for the winter.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very important question.

As he knows, we make specific mention in the green book that we have to look very carefully at the circumstances facing seasonal workers. For example, we have already set up a working group with the building and trades council to look at what happens in the construction trade. We are now working closely with them to find an answer.

We are also planning to establish a special working group in the next few days to deal with seasonal workers per se. That group will talk to those workers, the industries and the provinces affected so that once again we can provide a flexible, tailored response to meet the needs of seasonal workers.

There is another innovation we introduced this week, and you will be interested in this, Mr. Speaker. It is a special pilot project we provided in Prince Edward Island. It will allow seasonal workers to use their uninsurable weeks, those weeks when they only work part time during the week, to be pulled together to get an insurable week and therefore establish a broader work time. That stretches out the work week. That means we give more people more time to work. That is the kind of innovation and reform this country needs and we will continue to provide it.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the leader of the government in the House. I would like to know what the business of the House will be when we return next week.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is my intention to make a statement on another kind of human resources development, that is parliamentary resources.

We will continue this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow with the debate on social security programs.

When the House returns on October 17 from the Thanksgiving break the Standing Committee on Finance will shift into high gear. Following the reference to hold prebudget hearings in accordance with the new rules adopted by this House last winter, I wish to confirm that the Minister of Finance will be appearing before the finance committee on both Monday, October 17 and Tuesday, October 18. The committee will then consult a broad range of Canadians on what they want to see in the next budget.

Under our standing orders the committee will report its observations and conclusions to this House by December 2. We would hope to set aside a significant amount of time before we adjourn for Christmas two weeks after that in order to permit as many members as possible to express their views as well.

Putting this process into operation for the first time represents a new and more open and democratic approach toward budget making. I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for his warm and enthusiastic endorsement of our new procedures.

Turning to more immediate matters for the consideration of the House, the first item to be put before us here in the House on October 17 will be report stage and third reading of Bill C-49, the agriculture and agri-food department reorganization. We will then return to the second reading debates on the other departmental reorganizations, Bill C-46 on industry, followed by Bill C-48 on natural resources, followed by Bill C-52 on public works and government services, followed by Bill C-53 on Canadian heritage.

We will then return to second reading debate on Bill C-41 regarding sentencing.

The business I have announced will carry us to mid-week. The House will know there are two government bills on the notice paper today for introduction tomorrow. We would propose to call second reading of these two bills late in the week we return or early in the week after.

Some members may wish more time when we return for the social security debate which is now under way. It will also be necessary to designate some early opposition days. However I think it would be better to consult with my colleagues opposite before making any firm and final announcements on this. I ask the House to stand by. My next statement will give those details.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday we adopted an order of this House to extend the sitting tonight until 9 p.m. However, because of ministerial statements this morning approximately one-half hour of normal debating time was deducted from that which would otherwise have been time for hon. members to speak on today's order of the House.

After consultation with members across I think you will find there is consent to extend the sitting tonight by yet another half hour, that is to say until 9.30 p.m. to enable more hon. members to make their comments.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Social Security Programs

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am so disappointed with the government's mishandling of the opportunity we had to really reform Canada's social safety net. Our social safety net is full of holes and it seems like the minister is trying to shove it full of paper.

It is clear the government is without direction. This is a government without priorities. This is a government without a sense of urgency. This is a government without a long term perspective.

This is not an action plan as promised in the motion introduced by the minister in January and passed by this House. This is not even a good discussion paper. The minister's no action plan says there is a problem with overspending. His paper says that our social programs do not work. His paper says that people are becoming dependent on government handouts. However, any common sense person would come to the conclusion it is the government that is the problem.

The minister goes on to suggest that the answer to all these problems is more government programs. People tell me that none of this would be happening if the government would just take its greedy fingers out of people's pockets and let them run their own affairs.

How much will each alternative proposed in the no action plan cost to implement? What will be the social impact and consequences for each of the alternatives proposed in this no action plan? How many jobs will be created by each alternative? How can Canadians make an informed choice if they do not even have an assessment of the costs and the benefits for the proposed alternatives? How can Canadians make an informed choice if they do not know whether their own lives will be better or worse under the Liberal alternatives?

In yesterday's press conference the minister responded to questions about whether the cuts from social programs would be $1.5 billion or $7.5 billion by saying that fiscal parameters were already set and that there would be other changes in fiscal arrangements. What does the minister mean by other changes in fiscal arrangements? There can only be spending cuts or raising taxes. Will the minister admit that there will be no cuts or will he tell Canadians by how much they can expect their taxes to increase?

I would like to focus my response to the no action plan on the alternatives proposed for the unemployment insurance program and the so-called employment initiatives. I might remind everyone that unemployment insurance is the only program clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Constitution of Canada. All of the other programs the minister talks about in his no action plan are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The Angus Reid survey released by the government this summer clearly shows that the majority of Canadians think training and employment programs should be delivered by the provinces, not the federal government. The problem with this government is that it refuses to give up programs that do not work, programs that were not the government's in the first place.

Going back to unemployment insurance, the minister has failed to explore all the options that are open to Canadians with respect to UI. The Reform blue book policy has said for years that UI programs should be based on true insurance principles and administered by the employees and the employers who pay those premiums.

UI premiums come right out of the pockets of the workers, whether they are paid by the employees or their employers. Did the minister not once consider that the employees and employers who pay the premiums might not like the government taking their money and doing just anything it pleased with it? Did the minister consider that? Did he make it an option?

Did the minister even consider that the UI program should be voluntary rather than compulsory? Why is this option of giving employers and employees control of their program not included? That is a grave omission and one the minister should correct immediately.

The no action plan proposes using UI premiums for employment development rather than straight unemployment insurance as it was originally intended. This is an average of about $1,500 per year for each worker in Canada, money that comes directly out of the pockets of each worker. UI premiums are the second largest source of revenue for the government, next to personal income tax.

The minister is picking the pockets of the workers without their consent. This is just another cash cow the Liberals are trying to milk. The minister should be asking if this is what the workers who pay the premiums want, but that option is mysteriously omitted from this book. The government wants more control, not less, and it is not an option given to the Canadian people to decide upon.

The paper is full of so-called new ideas for helping people with job searches, personal counselling, training and so on. The problem is they are actually old ideas. For instance, the American 1988 jobs initiative was highly touted but proved to be a dismal failure. There is no meaningful analysis of why government has botched such things in the past so there is no suggestion about how to do it better the next time. There are some who claim that subsidized job training works, but oddly enough the OECD just took a hard look at this and rejected it as a failure. Yet this government thinks it is possible.

The 1960s Liberal thinking has failed and the countries that Liberals and NDPers used to hold up as shining examples of this are now in trouble. Sweden has cut housing subsidies. Norway is tightening disability payments. France requires those on social assistance to enrol in work training schemes. The Netherlands has set its social assistance at 50 per cent of minimum wage. Germany and Italy are raising the age at which pensions can be claimed. In Britain income support is available only on the basis of need and only after passing a means test. You decide who to believe: the so-called compassionate politicians that have got us in this mess, or the Reformers who have a plan to get us out.

The dribble in this paper about flexibility, about creating opportunity, about addressing individual needs, about minimizing waste and so on is just a bunch of hogwash. They are good intentions without any useful suggestions as to how it would be accomplished.

Madam Speaker, if you were really hungry and this was brought forth as food-this green book-after going through and digesting it, you would still be very hungry. There is no substance in it. It is like cotton candy. It is so big and it is sweet. It sounds so good, but it does not fill you up. There is nothing in here of substance. The one place where there is anything resembling substance is on UI.

As I explained, there is no action plan, no recommendations, no priorities but there are two fairly clear options. One is new. It is called the employment insurance program, which sounds better than the unemployment insurance program because employment is better than unemployment of course.

In Saskatchewan we have a little animal called a skunk. It does not matter what you call that skunk, it still stinks. This option proposes dividing recipients into frequent and occasional users. Although it charts the rapid rise in the former category, it blames it on globalization, not on the program itself.

I believe that if you want to get people off UI you have to quit paying them to be unemployed. Although the paper admits the difficulty of defining the two categories, then points to regional complexities, it makes no useful suggestion as to what should actually be done; nor is there any analysis of the perverse incentives that might be created thereby, or of the dual bureaucracy it would generate.

It does recommend lower benefits and job programs for frequent users. However it notes that job programs might require more money, not less. Then it says that UI has become a welfare scheme and it might be a good idea to target it based on need. Means testing is one possible good idea, although it would be better to leave welfare to welfare and make UI into real insurance.

The other option presented is to keep the program as it is, but to increase the requirements for qualification or reduce the duration or the amount of the benefits. The review itself notes that while this would reduce spending it would not address the many structural flaws in the system.

The discussion paper also mentions eliminating regional discrimination, which is a good idea, plain and simple. This is a policy straight from our Reform blue book. What worries me is that this good idea lacks the trendy, active labour market orientation to which the minister seems to be committed.

There is no cost benefit analysis here as elsewhere in the paper for the various options that are listed. Canadians cannot make choices if they do not know the costs and the benefits, whether the new situation would be significantly better or worse than what exists now.

It should be noted very strongly that the minister's alleged options paper certainly does not lay out all the options. That is one thing we must be clear about. Conspicuously absent are allowing employers and employees to administer unemployment insurance; voluntary versus compulsory unemployment insurance; a return to true insurance policies-none of these are in there-and finally, making no changes without the consent of the workers and employers who pay the premiums.

One glaring example of how off base the whole review is is that it points how much of recently created jobs are in part time, temporary, self-employed or multiple job sectors, which are not covered by UI. It even notes that these sectors are growing precisely because they are not covered by UI. Therefore they avoid the crushing payroll tax but it calls for the usual creative ideas for extending UI to these areas.

Government does not need any new programs. Lower taxes and create jobs. The finance minister clearly acknowledges that very principle and yet it is not clearly contained in this proposal.

The review notes that payroll taxes are bad although it coyly says that at least in the short run, payroll taxes discourage job creation, as though in the long run things might be different. It then discusses trying to create surpluses in good times to avoid having to raise premiums in bad times when they can least be afforded. This is a good idea but the funds must be kept separate from general revenue, not squandered on other things.

If it was a true insurance program this would be unnecessary. There is no separate fund for unemployment premiums. The paper contemplates removing the ceiling on earnings, subject to the payroll tax and lowering the rate so that the incentive to create exempt part time jobs at the low end would be reduced.

This shows some awareness of perverse incentive but if one does this, and taxes back the UI at high incomes one is moving away from a true insurance program. UI encourages unemployment precisely because it is not true insurance but a subsidy for those who are not working.

It also canvasses the idea of experience ratings, that is, moving toward real insurance by basing premiums on previous employment history. This is a good idea but why not go all the way?

It must be noted, and it is, that this makes the program more expensive for those least able to afford it. That is why it should incorporate a key principle of real insurance. It should be voluntary.

It proposes reducing premiums for employers who support training quite apart from the fact that most jobs involve informal training already. If this is done, then every single employer will move to have formal training and bigger firms will find it easier to do so. It will help crush small business and that is very serious.

I think Canadians will be disappointed, as I was, by the lack of leadership in the minister's no action plan. The minister has failed to lay out a clear path to significant reform as promised in the throne speech.

In those areas where he laid out options, he has not attached a fiscal price tag. An even greater tragedy is that the human cost analysis in terms of what improvements this reform will make are also missing.

How can the minister initiate a substantial debate on social reform without providing these key pieces in a debate. It is like trying to teach kids with only the first half of the book or giving them a test question in math without all the information.

We must admit that the process of social reform is more than just deficit reduction. The financial constraints are clear enough but the real problem with Canada's social safety net are the incentives that the current system is creating for Canadians.

Not only does our safety net need re-evaluation due to fiscal reasons but the inherent damage that these programs have created needs serious attention. This is why it is such a tragedy that neither the fiscal nor the social implications are laid out in this package.

If the minister is unwilling to lead this debate he faces the likely prospect that he will be left behind. Social policy must move beyond the outdated 1960s thinking that has characterized today's social programs. We need to admit that many of the assumptions underlying Canada's social programs are damaging Canadian lives.

We see increasing welfare and UI dependence. We see increasing amounts of students unprepared for the school to work transition. We see rising tax burdens. We see increasing family disintegration.

What are Reformers saying about these failures of Canada's social safety net? It is time to recognize the failure of the 1960s Liberal thinking and move toward the 21st century with real Reform thinking.

It is time to question universality. It is time to target social programs to those who are truly in need. It is time to recognize that we do not have the money to pay for all our social programs. It is time to consider affordable programs that can be sustained. It is time to reduce the number of programs and bureaucracy and consider flexibility, empowerment and put control of the programs back into the hands of the people.

It is time to recognize the dangers of big, centralized federal governments and consider community based and family oriented solutions. It is time to address the inherent dependency of present social programs and consider self-sufficiency, self- reliance and personal responsibility. It is time to question inflexible national standards and consider flexible programs that are responsive to human and economic reality. It is time to eliminate shared jurisdiction over programs, eliminate duplication and overlap and consider clear accountability of governments.

I feel strongly that this is the greatest boondoggle the government has come up with yet. We had this big drum roll before this was introduced, a big fanfare. We expected a good act. Then the inaction plan whimpered out on to the stage. Is this all there is?

The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Liberal government still think that outmoded solutions can be applied to modern problems. If he is unwilling to take on sacred cows, he is likely to get trampled by the whole herd.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I wish to indicate, pursuant to our standing orders, that after the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, that all subsequent speakers from the government side will be sharing their time. In other words, two 10-minute speeches as opposed to one 20-minute speech per round.

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, as one of the other members from the province of Saskatchewan I feel I cannot let the kind of comments I just heard from the hon. member from my home province go unchallenged.

He has dismissed the discussion paper today as hogwash. I cannot pretend to be more of an expert on hogwash than my colleague in the Reform Party. I will leave that unchallenged.

I listened as well to his analogy about eating the green book. I suspect that is where his difficulty has come from, in not understanding that the green book is for reading and not for eating. Perhaps that is why he is having so much difficulty.

Speaking of reading, I suspect that it is a failure to read the book and the predisposition to eat it that has caused the complete lack of understanding of what this discussion paper is about.

One point the hon. member raised is some notion he has that the federal government is hoping to seize power over provincial concerns. I did not think the Reform Party was concerned about constitutional issues, according to their statements during last year's political campaign. However, leaving that aside for a moment, the green book clearly states that it is the minister's intention to co-operate with the provinces on such things as education-learning in chapter 3.

I refer the member to page 19 of the summary where it clearly states that the federal government is looking for ways to expand access to education by co-operating with the provinces in finding ways to make the most of our shrinking resources and putting our talents to use that way.

If it is not expecting too much for the hon. member to turn to page 19, I refer him to the preface of the book where the minister clearly states that in his consultations with Canadians he hopes to work in partnership with all levels of government.

In all sincerity I listened to the hon. member and his colleagues in last year's campaign. I heard fine words from them about doing a new style of politics, looking at a plan on its merits and not simply criticising every possible aspect without giving time to consider the plan to possibly say: "Well we don't like this part, but we do like that part". Instead, what I am hearing from the hon. member is an outright denial of any merit in this plan.

I would just ask him to justify taking that point of view and then to honestly state to this House that he can find nothing in here. Perhaps he could comment on why he is not prepared to involve himself, as all other Canadians will be doing, in the process of bringing forth their ideas for weaving together our social safety net and making it stronger. Why does he not do that instead of simply taking out his machete, or whatever the proper analogy would be for someone in hogwash, slashing it down and letting Canadians fall with it.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of humour. However, I do not think it is very funny when we look at what is really in this paper.

First she criticized my remarks in regard to the power the federal government is trying to exercise over the provinces. If she had read this green paper she would realize the federal government is trying to take away control from the provinces in areas the Constitution of Canada has given them, such as training and education. Those are provincial responsibilities and this government is trying to get more and more involved in those areas.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member how incorrect she is when she says the government is trying to get the co-operation of the provinces. That is pure talk and no action. The government is giving the provinces less and less funding, but is continuing to maintain control. That is co-operation? Obviously not. You cannot expect the provinces to co-operate if you do not give them more control. I think that is a very serious accusation the hon. member has made. I think the Bloc members over here have some very legitimate concerns about this federal government taking over provincial jurisdiction. We ought to listen once in a while at least.

The hon. member also said that I did not see anything good in the paper. Obviously she was not listening very well to my speech because there are some options in here which we commend. For example, in unemployment insurance the reduction in the duration of benefits is a good thing. I have mentioned that. To reduce the level of benefits, to have income testing, to have all of these things I said are very good.

However, I also said that not all of the options were included. She said I am not getting involved in the debate. She has not been in this House very much if she does not know that we have made many suggestions to this government in previous speeches which it has not read and not included in these options.

That is what I was saying again today. Why are these options not included? Why are these options so narrow? Why is the government trying to have more control over the lives of Canadians rather than letting them have more jurisdiction over programs like unemployment insurance?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, and I am about to do something unusual for me and stand up for my colleague in the Reform Party even if, in many respects, we do not share that party's views.

Our colleague is a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. As far as I know, he was present during all proceedings and did take part in the first phase of consultation. That is why I am asking him this question.

Does my colleague consider that the consultations our committee held last winter and last spring are reflected in this working paper? We were supposed to get an action plan, but what we got is simply a working paper and a series of options. We were supposed to get something by mid-April, and then in June. Here were are in October, and the implementation is now postponed until next year. Is this a disappointment for the hon. member?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the answer is obvious. Yes, I am very disappointed.

Look at what this government is doing and the time line this government has laid before us. Back in January or February the government said it would put down an action plan and it would come forth in April. Then the government postponed it to September. Now in October we have more discussion.

If we look at what is going to happen in the future, if we follow this whole process through, now the government is saying we are going to go through a consultation process. Consultation is fine, but if it is just an excuse for more inaction, I cannot find that acceptable.

Then the government said it was going to introduce legislation in the fall of next year, 1995. That legislation is going to be debated, it is going to go through committee, it is going to go through first, second and third readings and that all takes time in this House. That brings us to 1996, the year before the election.

I ask: Does anyone think this government is going to seriously make some big changes just before the election? The answer is obvious. I do not think we are going to have substantial changes. After one year of inaction and another couple of years of debating and fiddling around with this thing, I do not think this government is seriously committed to really doing anything with social programs.