Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the invitation extended by the hon. member for Outremont, but I prefer to keep my comments relevant to this debate, because today we are discussing a motion tabled by the official opposition. I think it would be very useful to recall what the motion says.
That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance, all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
We are talking about national standards in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Finance keeps repeating that he wants this program to be more flexible, to provide greater flexibility than before, but the fact remains that the same national standards prevail.
To illustrate my point, I will quote from Bill C-76 which implements certain provisions in the budget. In section 13, Part V, we read the following:
-a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a fiscal year for the purposes of- (b) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility, extra-billing and user charges; and (c) maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of other social programs.
I would also like to recall what was said by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, when he explained that by combining all three programs into a single consolidated block transfer referred to as the Canada social transfer, beginning in 1996-97, the provinces, and I quote: "-will now be able to design more innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules. However"-and this is particularly important-"flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals and principles we believe must still apply, and which the vast majority of Canadian support".
I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which travelled across Canada last fall and was one of the members who visited every province. I listened to the testimony of all the groups that appeared before the committee,
a total of 1,200. It is not true that everyone across Canada wants national standards for education and social programs.
In Quebec, there was a general consensus against this principle. For instance, for the second time this year, I think it was on February 2, a unanimous resolution was passed by the National Assembly. Not just the Parti Quebecois but the Liberal Party as well supported it. The resolution was moved by the leader of l'Action démocratique, who asked the federal government to withdraw from manpower training. This has been said time and time again, and the government is still trying to give the impression that it intends to be more flexible.
I may recall that Bill C-76 does not contain all the measures that are to be implemented. Other legislation was passed previously. Bill C-28, for instance, which was about financial assistance for students and was passed on June 23, 1994. What did this bill provide? It was supposed to provide for two things, basically. First of all, for appointing the appropriate authority that may designate institutions of learning that may receive financial assistance from the government. What did it do? Instead of leaving this authority with the provinces, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council as before, it decided that the Minister of Human Resources Development would determine the appropriate authority. First point.
Second point. There were new conditions regarding the right to withdraw with full financial compensation. In the past it was automatic. However, the bill which precedes this one, but which remains in effect with the government's national standard, provided that Quebec, or any other province wishing to take advantage of this right to withdraw, had to propose a program exactly the same as the federal program on all counts, or receive no funding. Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cited a series of cases in which the Canada assistance plan did not fund programs, among others, the current PWA program in Quebec.
He listed seven or eight others and talked of the current situation, saying it would likely change with the amendments not yet officially tabled and whose legal scope was still unknown. What we are saying is that the federal government said very clearly in its budget, and in this bill, as well, that it wants to pay less and that it wants to transfer part of its deficit to the provinces, but that it wants to continue to impose conditions. This is rare. It would be normal to expect that certain conditions would be dropped. This, however, seems out of the question.
At first glance, when we reduce the expenses in the Canada social transfer and combine the three programs, if we take things literally and dropped at least 11 clauses from the bill, which contains other provisions, national standards, what would this mean for the reduction provided for in the budget? It means letting three sectors fight for the same money. This is not really acceptable. At least set guidelines and let provinces do their own thing.
Earlier, I felt like putting this to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who seemed almost to be talking about heaven. In talking about the current situation and federal flexibility, he almost seemed to be talking about heaven. Everything was fine. What is the real situation, however? For a year now, no Minister of Education in Quebec or in the other provinces has wanted to support the federal program of the Minister of Human Resources Development. No Minister of Health has participated in the forum on health. No provincial minister responsible for social assistance has wanted to take part, because they find the federal program unacceptable.
Is this flexible federalism? Is this the flexible federalism that is so fine, so positive, that none of the provincial authorities want to even take part in it? No, this is simply window dressing. As long as we have these national standards and we do not see the amendments that the Minister of Finance alluded to this morning, as long as the federal government does not withdraw entirely from areas of strictly provincial jurisdiction in health, education and social assistance and does not give the provinces the tax points that would allow them to manage their own programs, we will not be able to talk about flexible federalism.
Having another minute to go, I will talk about another situation. We talk about flexible federalism, but in actual fact there were enormous cuts which mean that 5,000 to 6,000 households more per month are currently requesting social assistance. Why? Because last year, in Quebec, on April 17 precisely, $2.5 billion were cut from unemployment insurance. The period of entitlement to benefits was reduced and that has meant 40 per cent more welfare cases in Quebec.
Is that going to give Canadians and Quebecers greater confidence in the flexibility of the federal government? No. I repeat, what the federal government wants is to pay less and to require more through its national standards.