Francine Lalonde

[Social Program Reform, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given that this reform of social programs is not included in the red book, that the Liberals did not bother to get the information at that time and that they are not mandated to carry out this reform, does the minister admit that the reform must be based on the full satisfaction of the provinces and that they must therefore be closely involved in the process, unlike what has been done so far?

[Social Program Reform, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The statements made by the Auditor General of Canada confirm that the Minister of Human Resources Development has launched a reform of social programs without the information required to make a real diagnosis. The Auditor General also deplored the lack of co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces.

Does the minister admit, as the Auditor General points out, that he has launched a reform of social programs before he was ready and that his haste can only be explained by his eagerness to meet the budget requirements of the finance minister, who has found no better way to reduce his deficit than to make the poorest people pay?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-17, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 13, with the following:

"the House of Commons given by resolution of that House, make such regula-".

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 10, with the following: (a ) 57 per cent of the claimant's average''.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 11, with the following:

"(ii) the greater of 57 per cent of the".

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear what the hon. member had to say. I will also speak on the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which calls for the review by a committee of the administration and operation of this clause.

What we call CAP for short is in fact the Canada Assistance Plan. This plan, also funded by the taxes paid by all Quebec and Canadian citizens, was established during the major economic recession between 1957 and 1961, when we noticed a significant increase in the number of poor people, including unemployed workers.

In fact, in its first three years, the plan was called the Unemployment Assistance Program. This program, which was created in cooperation with the provinces, but still comes under a federal law, ensures that the federal government will finance 50 per cent of a number of expenditures. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe said earlier, to a certain extent, this program was of a greater help to the richer provinces, which could incur more expenditures, knowing that the federal government would cough up 50 per cent of the costs, as was the case, for example, for daycare and social housing programs.

As far as social assistance is concerned, the amount to be paid by the Canada Assistance Plan varied according to how generous the individual provinces were. On the one hand, you had people living below the poverty level, and on the other hand, you had individual provinces deciding upon the kind of programs they could afford.

This budget completely changes the terms and conditions of what could be called the moral contract between the provinces and Canada, because, from now on, the subsidies given to the provinces will not exceed what was granted as of March 31, 1995.

I must add, Madam Speaker, that the Canada Assistance Plan is subject to many more changes, since, for all practical purposes, the same budget also announced the end or the overhaul of the Plan. The consultations to be undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources Development, which, as we know, are also announced in the same budget, concern the social assistance reform. And yet, social assistance unequivocally falls within provincial jurisdiction.

When the federal government freezes the payment transfers for the Canada Assistance Plan, it changes naturally, first, the situation the provinces are in and, second, the rules governing the other programs which exists under this Plan. Moreover, and this is extremely important, we will speak a little later of the changes to the unemployment insurance. These changes to the unemployment insurance will mean a heavier burden for provinces as far as social assistance is concerned.

Thus, in two very important ways, the budget and this omnibus bill will make things worst for the provinces when it comes to dealing with poverty-and this is what it is all about-when it comes to helping people without any revenue whatsoever to survive. With what poor people are given in each of the provinces, they can barely live.

We are talking here of distributing the contribution of the richer provinces to the poorer to help people who have no revenue not to live but, as I said, to barely survive.

Under these circumstances, the amendment is very modest. We would very much like the Reform Party and the government to agree to incorporate it into the omnibus bill. It will allow us to look more closely at the operation of this act, to examine the means available to each province to fight poverty.

I must add that I have the feeling that, given the reform undertaken by the minister, these sums will be used for other purposes and that we will have heated debates in this House over the next few months if I am right about the changes that I think are forthcoming. But I will wait.

I would like to respond here and now to those who wonder why Quebec sovereigntists want to separate from the Canadian federation when Quebec benefits from equalization and from the Canada Assistance Plan. Yes, we want to separate because we are not only convinced but certain-because we have studied all these issues very carefully-that if Quebec had all the powers of a sovereign state to develop its economy and fight poverty, it would be in a better position to help those in need, to provide social housing and child care services to Quebecers. Quebec would do better as an independent state than if it continued to receive transfers that are constantly reduced and subject to more and more conditions. It would do better than if it continued to be deprived of the means with which to develop a strong economy, with workers who have all the job training they need. The fact of the matter is that the federal government does not give the province enough money, money it collects from Quebec taxpayers in the first place.

So, this is a modest amendment which will hopefully allow us to continue to demonstrate that the operation of this act makes no sense.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to condemn strongly the fact that this one bill includes all sorts of important issues for Quebec and Canadian society. This bill deals not only with unemployment insurance, as we will see later on, but also with the CBC and with the public service, the subject of my remarks today.

Many public servants listened to the government party's sirens's song. The Liberals told them to change government and re-elect Liberals in order to get open collective bargaing back. Many of them told us how disappointed they were when, a few short months into the mandate of a new government, the wage freeze was extended.

We should know that this is not the first wage freeze. For most of those concerned, this will merely be an extension of an existing freeze.

Public servants are a resource for this country. Their role is to provide to their fellow citizens in Quebec or the rest of Canada the services they need and, most of the time, cannot provide themselves.

This refusal to engage in a real dialogue between negotiating parties has untold consequences in terms of productivity. The way you are dealt with very often determines the way you react. Obviously, you can always coerce somebody into working because there is a salary at the end, whatever the amount. But you can never force anybody to give his or her maximum unless he or she wants to. If we want workers to do their best, and we do need that everywhere now, one of the important things is that they have to feel that they are respected.

One may think that it is arrogant to deprive public sector workers of their dignity with a few paragraphs of a bill which contains measures on programs as important as UI that have attracted the most attention because they affect the most disadvantaged people in society.

The Liberals are at the beginning of their mandate. They are at a stage where they should have started a bargaining process.

They should have tried to ensure a settlement, even one which would subject workers to restrictions. Such a settlement implies that there is an exchange, give and take between parties, and that, at the start, the parties put their cards on the table, and respect each other.

All the conditions were in place for the Liberals because they had not been in power for a long time and the economic situation was better. But, by doing what they have done, what they are about to confirm, what they are threatening to do, if I really said what I think, they have blown their opportunity to re-establish a real dialogue with their employees who, let us not forget, are employees of the government and render services which we would not be able to provide otherwise.

Yes, they often have a bad reputation. However, many citizens know that they can count on their civil servants because they know them well, they know about the cuts, the problems that they face, that their workload is heavy, that they are the ones who answer the questions of the elderly taking their problems into account and that they are much better than answering machines with which the government wants to replace them.

We need a public service that gives the best of itself, and it is not by treating it the way we do that it will. On the contrary. This is the reason why-not expecting the government to reconsider its decision regarding the freeze-we proposed this amendment, inviting the government to have this reviewed by a House committee and give the public service the conditions so that they can do their best. By supporting this amendment, the government would at least-despite its tough position-show its commitment to review the whole matter.

It could start right away to prepare the ground for the return to open collective bargaining. It is in this spirit that this amendment has been formulated. We hope that everybody in this House will support its adoption and its implementation.

[Social Program Reform, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have to listen to the advice of his civil servants. However, he must tell us if, and how, he can justify, given the current situation with respect to public finances, the wasting of more than one million dollars on a communications strategy designed to explain to the poorest how they will have to put up with cuts totalling billions of dollars.

[Social Program Reform, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

One of the warnings given to the minister in a confidential draft on the communications strategy regarding the social program reform, which was made public yesterday by a member of Parliament, reads as follows:

"UI cuts seen by the population as evidence that government wants to fight the deficit on the backs of the poor".

Under the circumstances, will the minister tell us if the delay in tabling his action plan is the result of a split among cabinet ministers regarding what is at stake, as suggested in a recommendation from the same report which proposes this strategy: "-demonstrate Cabinet solidarity on socio-economic agenda"?

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 24, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development the following question: "How can the Minister argue that his government's priority is job creation, when its only strategy is an attack on 85 per cent of the unemployed, and moreover in the poorest provinces?"

I could ask this question to the minister because I had just received the information that unemployment insurance cuts for 1994-95 and 1995-96 would amount to $735 million a year in Quebec and $630 million in each of these years in the Atlantic provinces. This adds up to $1.365 billion in cuts for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces together, where some 30 per cent of the Canadian population lives.

Before the minister made these changes to unemployment insurance that will be submitted to Parliament, was he concerned about the economic impact of these cuts? I am talking about the economic impact because claimants will receive less, because they will not have access to unemployment insurance, because they will not have accumulated as many weeks of work, because benefits will be lower. This reduction means less money circulating in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, money that would pay rent and buy groceries and other necessities.

When governments have laws like the Unemployment Insurance Act to give money to workers who lose their jobs, this money is immediately put in the economy. It is not used to buy luxury goods and it is not used to accumulate wealth or to speculate either. It is money that goes into the local communities and all these communities, whether they are in my riding or in the Lower St. Lawrence or in small villages in the Atlantic provinces, will be directly affected because there will be less money in circulation.

Has the minister thought of the additional burden he is imposing on the provinces because social assistance will be greatly affected? Employment and Immigration published figures showing that increased welfare caseloads are expected. For example, it predicts 14,500 new applications from people who run out of UI benefits and 4,400 from people not entitled to UI.

In Quebec alone, the minister predicted-and we can consider these figures to be conservative as well-that 14,500 more households would be on welfare at a cost of $127 million for next year; I repeat, these figures are conservative. So I repeat my question: How can the minister claim that he is working on job creation when, before helping people, he cuts what they need to eat, to live and to hang on?

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are not accustomed to leading questions on this side of the House. However, my colleague has given me the opportunity to focus on one of the major problems that young people face. My colleague spoke about how people of my generation-I am 53 years old-were able to find work quite easily upon graduating from university. This was likely also true for some people who are younger than me and certainly for those who are older. Finding a job is the issue uppermost in the minds of young people. There is no possible way it can be argued that this bill is part of an overall employment strategy.

Regarding my hon. colleague's second question, I am concerned about the new role that banks are being called upon to play. I am concerned because we are told that as things now stand, the banks have no incentive to ask students to repay the money they owe and that as a result, the government is left to contend with loan defaulters. I note that the minister has given banks a great deal of latitude to negotiate. Is it not a little absurd that the additional money to be spent will be used to help banks put more pressure on students to repay their loans?