Madam Speaker, it is obvious that in unveiling the draft of his reform of social programs, the Minister of "Curtailment of Human Resources" created social insecurity in today's Canada and tomorrow's Quebec.
That insecurity hits the unemployed, students, young people looking for jobs, low-income families, single-parent families, in short, all the have-nots in society. When you know what this far-reaching reform proposal is all about, there is no doubt that its first objective can be summarized in one word: cuts.
Furthermore, it is clear that the first victims of these cuts will be the people in our society who are least able to bear them. In an effort to save the Canadian boat from sinking, the Liberal government will throw the poor, the disadvantaged and the unemployed over board. Among the poor in our society, women and children will undoubtedly be the designated victims of this big cleanup.
This government, which loudly professes its firm commitment to help children, is very careful not to recognize the paradox inherent to the present review of the social security program. Child poverty cannot be isolated from poverty of Canadian and Quebec families. In its 1993 report, the Canadian Action Committee on the Status of Women showed that 62 per cent of one-parent families headed by a woman were living under the poverty level.
For those families, more than any other family, poverty is a day to day reality. If we want to get rid of the spectre of poverty, it is the economic status of women that we must resolve.
In that context how can this government justify cutting $7.5 billion in social security without making his credo of the necessary cost effectiveness of the Canadian social security system? The opposition between the statements and the intentions of the Liberal government are blatant.
The following example proves it. One of the goals of the reform is to increase the economic security of Canadians. In the documents tabled by the minister, the government recognizes that the best way to tackle child poverty is to guarantee jobs to parents. Yet, there is not even an iota about job creation in the document.
Mrs. Françoise David, president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec said: "Is it not cynical on the part of that government to pretend that it wants to eliminate child poverty while saying absolutely nothing about job creation for parents?" Empty words and vague propositions is how the government sweetens the pill for the citizens of this country. A few examples will suffice.
The report contains a plan to increase child tax benefits for low-income families. The plan does not consider the impact of those changes on middle-class families who will probably bear the burden.
Mrs. Madeleine Bouvier, of the Fédération québécoise des familles à parent unique, denounces eloquently the shamelessness with which middle-class citizens, who are more and more crippled, are asked to help the government in assuming its responsibilities. Once more the government vision is out of focus: How can you pretend that you are helping children living in poverty when you weaken the social safety net? Clearly, neither Canada nor Quebec will fall for that.
The real agenda of the government is getting clearer by the day, suffice it to look at the reform proposals for unemployment insurance. I am referring in particular to the principle of family income to determine the right to UI payments.
If the spouse-understand husband-earns $50,000, his wife will not be eligible for unemployment insurance.
Gérald Larose, president of the CNTU, does not mince his words. To him, it is clear that this principle is directed towards women, since their salaries are lower than the salaries of men. How ironic that the only tax proposed in this reform project is directed towards women!
To the fund you shall contribute Though no benefit will you see For your husband still retains control Thanks Mr. Axworthy.
Not only is it frightening to see how this government is getting ready to destroy our social security system, but it is just as frightening to discover the tactics it has perfected to save our ailing federalism. Throughout this document, the Liberal government's intentions are clear: it wants to get into areas under provincial jurisdiction. And all excuses are valid. Child care is a good example.
While the minister recognizes the responsibility of provincial governments with regard to the definition and management of child care services, he explains in the same breath his clever participation in this area: to give funding, of course, as long as this funding is tied to national standards. I know that Quebec will not be fooled by such a deal, and I am convinced that the provinces will certainly not be taken in so easily.
Here is another example of federal incursions into provincial areas of jurisdiction, and I mean post-secondary education. The tidy $2.6 billion cut into transfer payments in that area will have an enormous impact, as much on students as on colleges and universities.
The provinces will have no choice but to increase their deficits or accept the erosion of their education systems. For universities, there will only be one solution: to increase tuition fees. Quebec university student associations are against these reforms, because they fear that tuition fees might increase to some $8,000 a year.
The federal solution in this case is simple: you have only to make more loans available for students. Here again, the solution is unacceptable, and the government knows full well that imposing the debt burden on our young people is untenable. Such an option will discourage many of them from attending university. How can we explain that, on the one hand, we praise the merits of learning while, on the other, we do not hesitate to charge prohibitive fees for access to education?
This leads me to make a few comments on another element of reform. I want to talk about the government's intention to promote on the job training for UI recipients.
In its analysis, the government recognizes the need to reduce overlap between the two levels of government. That intent is part and parcel of the myths of federalism. We know that only sovereignty will allow Quebec to eliminate overlap and waste. Obviously the government of Canada does not share this outlook.
The reform's central theme is "Jobs and Growth". We thank the Liberals for having targeted the two big failures of our system. But job creation and economic growth are sadly missing from the paper published yesterday. A better title would have been "Cuts and Decline".
I wonder how, in this country, one is expected to find a job when there are none.
