Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching the debate today are probably not sure whether the concern here is political point making or whether it is the welfare of the people of Canada. I hope as legislators in the Chamber we keep in mind the welfare of the people we represent and the people we serve.
There are strong feelings on issues that are perhaps unrelated to the absolute welfare of Canadians. Perhaps there are agendas that would seek to use some of the issues as springboards. However it is very important today to focus on what can best be done to assist the people and to keep in mind there are needs and concerns shared right across the country.
We need to be honest and point out that governments can only do so much, whether it is a federal government or a provincial government. To my knowledge there has not been a government in history that has been able to eradicate poverty or has been able to relieve all citizens from hardship, from difficulty in their lives, from the insecurities of life with which we are concerned.
Somehow there is a feeling or a belief that governments can look after all of us and prevent us from facing hardships and difficulties. It is not fair to Canadians to suggest that if we talk enough, if we accuse each other enough, if we promise enough or if we fight enough, everyone will be looked after.
We can direct our minds to working together not only as legislators but as fellow citizens, to assisting each other, and to doing all we can to help those who cannot help themselves. That should be the real focus of the debate today.
There is a transition in the country with respect to security for Canadians. For quite a few years many security programs have been premised on two assumptions that have proved to be false. The first assumption is that mother government will, can and should look after its citizens, support them and protect them from all the difficulties and contingencies of life. The second assumption is that government can and should do so by borrowing money.
We have spoken so often about the dangerous assumptions and the wrong headedness of the assumptions that it is surprising we do not start from the premise right away. Clearly we do not. The reason reductions are being made in the funding of programs not just by the federal government but by all levels of government is that more and more of our income, more and more of our economic product, is being eaten up in compound interest accrued on the borrowing we have done to put the programs in place. Arguing about who did what to whom and whether cuts should be made here or there really obscures the central question of how we are to manage the situation we are in while making a firm and proper commitment to help the people who are truly needy.
My friends in the Bloc have a very legitimate point of concern which they have raised today about how the situation is being addressed. It is a situation that will not change. We are spending more and more of our income on interest payments. We are at the point where we cannot continue to fund programs on borrowed money. That inevitably leads to spending reductions. The question is not whether there should be spending reductions but how they should best be managed. If the debate today is intended to legitimately and honestly address the situation, it is very proper and very needed.
Quite frankly no plan has been advanced or proposed by the government or by the ministers responsible to give us a road map, a sense of direction on where we are going in light of the realities of the economy and the reality that government cannot deliver on the promises that it made in the past to be all things to all people and to preserve and protect us in every difficulty.
I listened carefully for the visions, proposals and recommendations of previous speakers to Canadians who want security for themselves in the future. I did not hear any such proposal. I heard blame being assigned. I heard denials. I heard ridicule of concerns. However I did not hear any leader in the House say so far what he intends to do to address the serious concerns of the people.
In many places of the world the concerns of people in difficulty and distress who need relief and assistance have often been used as vehicles to promote political agendas. I hope very much that will not happen in our country. Promising people something that no level of government can really deliver is a dishonest approach to a problem that we do not want to duplicate in Canada. It also does not address what we should be and could be doing to better serve the people of our country.
The finance minister is correct when he says that the legislation put before the House to implement his budget does not impose any new national standards on the provinces. I have examined the legislation very carefully and there are no proposals for new standards. I do not believe the provinces are being required to do any more than they have in the past as far as delivery of services are concerned.
There are however two concerns which my friends in the Bloc have raised that we should acknowledge and address as much as we can. One concern is that there is no co-operative plan or process to facilitate the development of a co-operative plan to ensure the proper, effective and efficient delivery of services that Canadians need.
The government has said that it would reduce its spending and talk about what we will do together later. That is not a good service to the people. A far better thing to have done would have been to immediately work to facilitate a discussion and a co-operative approach to how services will be delivered instead of making unilateral decisions and then saying we can talk about it later. All provinces justifiably have concerns about that type of process. It could have been managed a great deal better.
The role of the federal government in the delivery of the programs has to be addressed honestly. The federal government is continuing to apply its own criteria to how the programs are delivered and to make judgments, pronouncements and give direction on how things will be structured as far as the delivery of programs is concerned. My friends in the Bloc are correct when they point out that it is an intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
People look for income support when they cannot provide themselves with the necessities of life. Some of these people have suffered from a catastrophic illness or they are young people who are looking for the training and education needed to build a strong future for themselves. I do not think these people really care very much about how and at what level of government these services are delivered. They simply know they need the assistance and programs that will best enable them to look after the contingencies in life.
Canadians watching the debate today have probably felt quite frustrated at the suggestions that you should do this or we should do that; that you did not do this right or they did not do it right. Quite frankly, Canadians just want to know who is going to do it right.
The principles outlined by the Reform Party suggest how we can best deliver programs and structure the spending of public money to give Canadians health and security. The programs are most efficiently and effectively delivered by the level of government closest to the people being served. I believe the people who framed our Canadian Constitution saw it that way as well. Clearly, they put these matters into provincial jurisdiction.
If my friends in the Bloc are suggesting that it should fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces to deal with matters of post-secondary education, delivery of health care services and the support of citizens who are destitute and unable to provide for themselves, then Reform completely agrees with them. These services are best delivered by the provincial government and institutions and organizations in the provinces.
It would be the federal government's role to provide equalization of the financial ability of each province to provide good delivery of those services. It would also work co-operatively to facilitate a strong, coherent approach to the delivery of those services right across the country.
This is a very mobile society. People can now move easily from one end of the country to the other and to different provinces many times in their lives. We want to make sure there are proper services, proper education, proper health care, that we are caring for people to the best of our ability no matter where they live in Canada. The federal government does have a role which is to ensure the proper co-ordination and proper delivery of services across the country.
This confrontational approach, the big stick of additional funding and threats to withdraw funding if the federal government's will is not carried out will simply not be workable in the future. We must acknowledge that. We must move to a far more co-operative approach where we simply work together as legislators at the federal, provincial and lower levels of government to simply do our job, which is to serve the people we represent and with whose money and futures we have been entrusted. We need to work together to do that well.
It both concerns and disappoints me when we quarrel and fight rather than work together for the benefit of the people we are responsible to help and to serve by making good decisions. I appeal to my colleagues in this debate to look at the practicalities of how best we can achieve the good of all Canadians rather than simply using people's legitimate needs and concerns to advance agendas which really have nothing to do with giving them the help and the kind of government they need and deserve.
We could work co-operatively and we could respect the decisions that have been made as to how best to help people. We could respect our jurisdictions and the proper roles each level of government has. If we could do that, all Canadians would be much better served.
As members know, the Reform Party has put forward a number of proposals to better meet the health care, education and social welfare needs of Canadians. We have done this in light of the realities we face today, in light of the fact that some of the past assumptions simply have not proven to be correct or workable. Today is not the time when I will talk specifically about those.
It should be the will of all of us serving as federal or provincial legislators, or as municipal officials, at whatever level we are trying to meet the needs and protect the interests of the citizens we serve to work co-operatively. We must work to find ways where each of us can make the best contribution for the good of our citizens, where we can bring our country together, where we can work together and build a strong future. With that in mind, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately following the word "denounce" the following: "for the sake of national unity".
When we work together in a unified way, we will best serve the legitimate and very real needs of all the people of this country.