Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the motion before us which accuses the government of using the proposed Canada health and social transfer to damage the interests and autonomy of the provinces.
This motion and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in support of it are completely unfounded. Moreover, it is a gross misrepresentation of what we in the government have said and intend to do.
Had the Leader of the Opposition taken the time to read the budget, he could have easily ascertained our true intent by reading the budget plan released in February in which the Minister of Finance announced the new transfer program which the hon. member finds so troubling. In that document the Minister of Finance states that transfers to the provinces under health, CAP and PSE will be structured differently to create a system that is both fiscally sustainable, more flexible and better suited to the needs of Canadians.
This will be achieved by consolidating the three transfers into a single new block transfer called the Canada health and social transfer. Rather than using it to intrude into areas of provincial responsibility or to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere consultants as the opposition alleges in its motion, the budget declares the exact opposite.
The budget states: "The new transfer will end the intrusiveness of cost sharing under CAP and will reduce the federal-provincial entanglement that has been a source of irritation with current cost shared transfer arrangements".
This is because federal expenditures would no longer be driven by provincial decisions as to how and to whom social assistance and social services will be provided. Provinces will no longer be subject to rules stipulating that certain expenditures are eligible for cost sharing while others are not. As a result, the provinces will be free to pursue innovative approaches to social security reform without having to worry about whether such approaches meet requirements for cost sharing. The expense to both federal and provincial governments of administering cost sharing will be eliminated.
Thus, it is clear the Canada health and social transfer will not damage the role of provinces as the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests in his motion. There will be national standards for
the new Canada health and social transfer and the February budget sets them out quite clearly.
No change will be made to the Canada Health Act. Its principles will continue to be enforced by withholding funds if necessary. In addition, provinces will be required, as they are under the rules of the Canada assistance plan, to provide social assistance without any minimum residency requirement.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will invite all provincial governments to work together on developing through mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives that could underline the new transfer. In this way all governments could reaffirm their commitment to the well-being of Canadians. The Minister of Health will continue to work with provincial and territorial health ministers to renew Canada's health system.
The Canada health and social transfer represents an important step forward for the provinces since it will give them the flexibility they need to develop innovative social programs that can better address the needs of their citizens. After all, it must be admitted that the current Canada assistance plan with its restrictive cost sharing requirements too often inhibited such innovation. Nowhere have the negative impacts of this legislative straitjacket been more obvious than in the hon. member's own province.
It is a sad fact that many exciting and innovative programs in Quebec have been denied funding because of the restrictive requirements contained in the rules governing the current transfer programs. For instance, APPORT is an income supplement program for low income families with children which seeks to help such parents make the transition from social assistance to the workforce. Since 1988 this program has been ineligible for cost sharing because its assessment of need does not conform to that of the transfer program.
Then again, many programs in the 1970s aimed at disadvantaged children in Quebec were ruled ineligible because they did not correspond to the definition of welfare services contained within the act which excludes services related to education. Similarly, probation services for young offenders are ineligible since the same definition of welfare services also excludes correctional services. The list goes on and on.
However, I should add that these problems are not restricted to Quebec. Virtually every province has at one time or other seen worthwhile projects turned down. These have included programs in such diverse areas as self-managed care, community based services, nutrition programs for children and adaptive transportation services for the disabled.
The introduction of the Canada health and social transfer will make it possible for provinces to proceed with these kinds of programs which have been excluded in the past.
As well, let me state categorically that the government has not and will not use transfer programs as a way to interfere in areas of provincial responsibility as this motion suggests. Rather the federal government seeks to involve the provinces as full partners in the very important work of developing a set of shared principles and objectives which might underlie this new transfer system.
This is why the Minister of Human Resources Development will be inviting his provincial colleagues to sit down with him to discuss ways in which we can work together in partnership to develop a common framework of objectives and approaches for the Canada health and social transfer.
Canadians of all regions are very proud of our system of social programs and they are right to be. These programs flow from the shared values of all Canadians and are the result of decades of hard work, sacrifice and dedication. This investment of time, effort and commitment has resulted in a quality of life which is regarded with envy and admiration by the rest of the world.
Let me ask this very fundamental question of those who intend to support the motion. Would this country have been better off if the federal government had not been active in transferring funds to the provinces? Think of the achievements that these transfers have helped provinces to build in the past 30 years. Look at the issue of medicare, the envy of the world; post-secondary education and colleges, one of the highest enrolment rates; the safety net, protection for the most vulnerable. These are proud records of achievement.
While funding arrangements have served Canadians well in the past, federalism is changing. Therefore our transfer programs must also change to remain relevant. There is a need for a greater flexibility in the way we provide funds to the provinces. In hindsight it is clear that some features of our current system reflect a paternalistic and prescriptive approach which is out of place in the 1990s.
Too often restrictions contained within the current system have stifled innovation by the provinces and derailed worthwhile projects before they even got started.
The new Canada health and social transfer will actually result in less intrusion by the federal government in the affairs of the provinces and not more, as the hon. member suggests. It will also result in greater flexibility.
We are taking the proper step toward building co-operative federalism. It speaks to the type of positive direction in which the government is taking the country.
