Madam Speaker, I asked for an opportunity to comment on and criticize the answer given by the Minister of Human Resources Development in response to my question on December 6, 1994. I asked the minister how he could claim that his reform was supported by 96 per cent of the population.
This is called putting a spin on the figures. It is a very good example of the old saying that you can make figures and statistics say anything at all. The minister has turned this into a fine art. I carefully examined the results of the poll the minister used to support his statement, and I was very surprised when I found that the poll's originator, the Angus Reid group, reached conclusions that were sometimes the exact opposite of what the minister said.
Before I give you some examples, I would like to make it clear that in the interests of authenticity, I will quote the results of the poll as written. This way, people can hardly accuse me of the kind of behaviour I did not appreciate in the minister.
As my first example, I will quote question 4 which reads as follows: The federal government is proposing measures to reform social programs in Canada. Do you think it is a good or a bad idea?" On December 5, the minister claimed that "96 per cent of Canadians believe major changes have to be made in"-and here is the difference-"social policy".
I take this opportunity to remind you that the minister then accused me of misunderstanding. According to the minister's statement, we could expect 96 per cent of the people to answer yes to question 4. Surprise, surprise. Only 70 per cent of respondents thought it was a good idea. People thought social reform was a good idea but a comprehensive reform is a different story.
Can someone tell me where the missing 26 per cent are hiding? Not among the 13 per cent who are undecided or the 17 per cent who are opposed. I might add that the question to which 70 per cent replied yes referred to a reform and not a comprehensive reform, as the minister claimed.
Another flagrant example of inconsistency with the facts concerns Quebec's support for the federal initiative. The minister said that "when the survey is broken down by region, as many people in Quebec support the social reform proposals of the government as in the rest of Canada". This statement differs substantially from the authors' findings. Let me quote them on two issues. On page 7, they say that Ontario respondents were the most likely to say that programs should be completely revamped (64 per cent), while Quebec respondents were the least likely to give the same answer (44 per cent).
I note a 20 per cent difference between the two provinces. Is that what the minister calls equality?
My second quote is the following. On page 11, we read, concerning the proposed scheme for seasonal workers, that respondents from Quebec are much less favourable to these options; for example, 39 per cent of Quebec respondents agree with the amount of benefits paid being reduced beyond a certain number of applications, as opposed to an overall average support of 52 per cent, a 13 per cent difference.
One last comment. It is not by overstating the importance of an alleged popular support that we will convince the people of the merits of these proposals. It would be much wiser to stick to reality and, this way, preserve our credibility. This comment is valid today and it will still be when the reform proposal is back on the agenda, as we now know that political considerations have prevailed over the need for reform.