[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
.1620 
[English]
The Chair: Order. The finance committee is continuing its study of Bill C-76.
Our first witness today is the Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, national volunteer chairperson. Ms Barlow, would you please be good enough to introduce those who are with you before you make your presentation?
Ms Maude Barlow (National Volunteer Chairperson, Council of Canadians): Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to be here. With me is Peter Bleyer, our executive director, and David Robinson, our senior researcher on economics and social policy.
I just want to remind you that our organization is about 35,000 strong now. We're a non-partisan, non-profit organization made up of members right across the country. We're funded entirely by our members. We don't receive any government funding.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to voice our concerns regarding this bill.
[English]
We're very concerned, generally, about the effects of the cuts that were announced in the recent budget. We feel they're going to affect the entire social infrastructure of civil society in our country. We don't think they've really begun to be felt yet, but when they do I think there's going to be an outcry that's going to be quite strong.
However, we're particularly concerned with and particularly reject the implications of the deep cuts to the social programs, which we believe suggest that the government is blaming our social programs for the debt and the deficit, laying the blame for debt and deficit at the feet of social security, with what we believe is not one iota of proof.
.1625
We feel this legislation, Bill-76, is one of the most important bills ever before this House, perhaps since the creation of the infrastructure during the Pearson years. In fact, we feel it is the beginning of the unravelling of the social programs put together during the 1960s. Yet it is not getting the attention it deserves from Parliament, the government, the media and the people of Canada. We compare it, for instance, with the gun reform legislation, which we support. We're on record as supporting it. We feel it's very important, but at the same time we don't feel it's going to impact on average Canadians in the way every part of this legislation is going to affect every person in the country.
Bill C-76 opens the door for the federal government - either this one or another - to remove itself from the responsibility to enforce national standards. While we don't oppose more local decision-making regarding the delivery of social programs, we believe a breakdown of federal accountability will lead to a patchwork quilt of relief services and allow the provinces to change or bypass the spirit of universality.
We're deeply concerned about the amount of money being taken from the system, which we have calculated will bring us back to around the 1950s in terms of the amount of social spending as a portion of total government spending. However, we're more concerned with the discretion this is going to give cabinet to enforce or not enforce yet-to-be-negotiated standards.
Putting the three programs together is going to make it less likely that the government would ever use withholding of money to enforce any kind of national standards. We can't see, for instance, how the federal government would punish the Klein government for opening up more private eye clinics by withholding money for post-secondary education and social assistance to people who need it. It would just get too many voting members of the public angry. The political damage will mitigate against ever using this legislation once it's lumped into one lump sum and reduced dramatically. We believe the next step will be for the provinces to take responsibility for social programs.
We're more concerned with what we see as a possible return to the system of the 1930s. I've been doing some research on the creation of our social system and what happened during the 1930s. It's terribly important for us to realize that a lot of money actually was spent by the federal government on relief in the 1930s. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1960s that as much money would be spent again as a percentage of total government spending on social welfare.
However, it was given to the provinces, who downloaded it on the municipalities. It created a terrible patchwork quilt of programs. It was punitive. People came into your home to see if you had good food, new shoes, a radio or liquor. Residency requirements, which I understand are not in this legislation, could be demanded by provinces who wanted to stop receiving the problems from other provinces eventually. These were put in place during the 1930s.
Because people couldn't plan ahead for any kind of social security, they would wait until the last minute if their child was very sick. They couldn't plan for unemployment insurance. They couldn't plan for old age. The social infrastructure did not reflect the amount of money spent. It's terribly important for us to make that distinction.
Finally - and both David and Peter are going to speak for a few minutes - we don't understand why the finance department is introducing the most important changes to our social security and health system in decades. We understand it's a budgetary item, but we worry that this signals that all decisions about social security will now be made against the backdrop of deficit fighting and deficit cutting when the government and Mr. Martin admitted to us in a post-budget meeting that social programs did not cause the debt and the deficit. We argued, therefore, that they should not be made to take the hit. Coming from Finance, this signals that this is going to be a deficit-cutting measure from beginning to end. We believe it will be only a matter of time before our programs are gone.
Finally, I want to say that we have built up through the last four or five decades ribbons of common purpose called national social programs. Any government that tampers with this should try to understand what the fallout is going to be on the lowest levels as it dribbles down. This is downloading to the provinces, who will download to the municipalities.
.1630
I spent a fair amount of time in Alberta recently and I know what it looks like when a province decides that this is what it's going to take on, this is the mandate. I'm not suggesting this is the purpose behind the government's legislation here, but the possible effect on the people of this country will be very negative all the same, we believe.
Mr. David Robinson (Research Officer, Council of Canadians): Picking up on the points that Maude was raising, I think there are two key issues we have to look at with the Canada health and social transfers. One is that we're looking at substantially less in federal cash transfers to the provinces to fund post-secondary education, health care, and social services. That in turn is going to signal a dramatically weakened federal presence in social policy, not allowing the federal government to guarantee that national standards or the Canada Health Act could be enforced.
With fewer federal dollars, we have the problem of how the government is going to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act. But we also have another problem and that is that transfers with no enforceable conditions don't provide us with any guarantee that federal funds allocated for specific purposes, like health care, will actually be spent for those purposes, that funds slated, for example, for human services or health care could easily end up building provincial highways or financing provincial debt-servicing charges.
This lack of accountability is already a serious problem in the area of post-secondary education, which has no conditions associated with it under the EPF transfers. But I think the CHST is going to make matters a lot worse by lumping the money for welfare and social services, the poor cousin of social programs, in with the bigger basket of education and health care, and I think social assistance is in real danger of getting lost in the mix here.
But I don't think Bill C-76 ends there. The legislation also calls for the repeal of CAP. We should remind ourselves that when CAP was introduced in 1966 it was designed to achieve a number of very specific objectives and it has achieved those relatively well.
First, it helped consolidate what was then an existing patchwork of social programs, which Maude was referring to, and it provided benefits to any Canadian who could demonstrate need.
Second, federal funding of provincial social services helped build an infrastructure of welfare programs throughout the country.
Finally, CAP introduced important rights and standards into provincially run social service programs. These rights include things like the no-residency requirement, but they also include the right that no one should be forced to work for benefits, or that provinces provide assistance to anyone who can demonstrate need and that an appeals process be put in place.
If we look at Bill C-76, all of these rights are gone except for one and that's the no-residency requirement. I think that's a major shift in social policy.
I think the repeal of CAP is going to have other regressive effects. One of the strengths of CAP is that it is in principle a cost-sharing arrangement, although there has been the cap on CAP that's affected three of the provinces. So, for all intents and purposes, for three provinces it is a block fund and we've seen the effects of that. Cost sharing also requires provinces to make an initial contribution to social services, but by ending the cost-sharing arrangement you no longer require provinces to make that initial up-front investment.
So for these reasons I think we have to be very careful about block funding, and I think the council wants to recommend that it be rejected. That doesn't mean the current funding system is adequate. Obviously, we still have a problem. Under the EPF, the so-called ``escalator'' means that the cash payments are going to run out some time in the next decade. That's why we'd like to bring forward the following recommendations today.
First of all, we'd recommend that the federal government continue to play a leading role in funding health care, post-secondary education, and social assistance, and that means a continuation of federal cash payments to the provinces. Even the most conservative estimates show that under the existing proposed formula in Bill C-76 cash payments to the provinces will reach zero by the year 2007-08.
Also, the federal government should, once and for all, give up its claim that the tax transfers that are given to the provinces actually constitute federal support for programs like health care and post-secondary education. These taxing powers are clearly within provincial jurisdiction and should thus be seen as provincial contributions. I think that's why we're not very reassured by the promises from the Minister of Human Resources Development that a new agreement with the provinces that doesn't address the decline in cash transfers will actually enable the federal government to enforce national standards and conditions.
.1635
Only a stable funding formula ensuring the continuation of federal cash transfers can guarantee that continuing federal presence in medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance. So what we need then is a formula in place that's going to reverse this decline in federal cash payments.
I think one possibility that we should be talking about would be to develop an arrangement whereby the federal cash portion of transfers would increase in line with the rise of the consumer price index, population growth and other indicators of demand - for example, unemployment rates, poverty rates and demographic composition of a particular province. I think a funding arrangement developed along these lines would be simple and fair and would also ensure, most importantly, a federal support for social programs. Cash support wouldn't disappear. This would allow Ottawa to maintain its spending authority and to enforce the Canada Health Act and other national standards.
I think another recommendation we would like to make is that CAP not be repealed. I think eliminating CAP means taking away some very fundamental rights from Canadians. Under the proposed legislation, as I mentioned, the only right that is kept from CAP is the no-residency requirement. But I think the no-residency requirement is absolutely meaningless when you destroy all the other rights, including the right that an income assistance program be put in place by the provinces or that all individuals be able to access an income social safety net based upon need.
I think our third recommendation would be that federal funding for health care, post-secondary education and social services be kept distinct or kept in separate envelopes. This is the so-called three-envelope proposal that other groups have put forward.
Under the block funding proposal of the Canada health and social transfer there is no guarantee that funds allotted for specific purposes or specific programs will actually be spent on those programs. Federal money will be transferred to provincial treasuries as a big lump sum and spent at the discretion of provincial governments. We believe it's only fair that Canadians know how federal money is being spent and I think a three-envelope approach would ensure that.
Our fourth recommendation then would be that the federal government continue arrangements specified under CAP to share the costs of welfare and social services with the provinces. Again, maintaining a cost-sharing arrangement is important in order to ensure that provinces continue their contribution to social assistance.
Also, because the proposed block funding under the Canada health and social transfer will be fixed for every province - it's going to be a lump sum - all the costs of rising welfare claims then during poor economic times will be borne entirely by the provinces. This is going to represent a massive downloading of cost during the next recession, which from all indications is coming soon, when people are most in need. So the federal government then is simply downloading a major financial burden onto the provinces.
Finally, I think the federal government should clearly set out strict and enforceable conditions granting it the authority to ensure that federal funds allocated for health care, post-secondary education and social services are spent appropriately by the provinces and that national standards can be maintained and the Canada Health Act enforced.
If we look at Bill C-76, it specifies that any penalty imposed upon a province violating national standards is left solely up to the discretion of cabinet. So in effect the government of the day can turn a blind eye to any provincial infractions if it so wishes, and that leaves the enforcement provisions of the Canada health and social transfer virtually toothless.
That makes it all the more important that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources Development should be required to make public yearly reports detailing any violations of the Canada Health Act or any other national standards governing post-secondary education and social assistance. Bill C-76 does not require the ministers to do so. It says they may, but there is no requirement for that.
.1640
I think those are the major recommendations we would bring forward, and I would turn it over to our executive director, Peter Bleyer, to conclude.
Mr. Peter Bleyer (Executive Director, Council of Canadians): Thank you, David.
David has given you a summary of the recommendations in our brief. I'd like to come back to a point Maude raised previously.
We are seriously concerned - and this is with all due respect to this committee and the people in this room - that such an important, fundamental social policy measure is being put forward in a context where clearly a deficit reduction has been established as a priority and in the context of this committee's hearings. Obviously implementation of budget measures has certain implications for how Parliament deals with this legislation, but we are seriously concerned that legislation that we feel will fundamentally negatively affect social policy in this country is being approached in this way.
This is one of the elements of a broader concern with democratic process and the process that we think ranges from the issue of elections and mandates gained during elections and promises made during elections, all the way through the issue of what value there is - and I think this is important for us to raise as the first, I believe, non-government group presenting to this committee - in groups, members of this society, citizens, actually presenting to parliamentary committees. I think as members of Parliament you should take that into serious consideration.
Recent evidence raises some grave doubts. We have those doubts, but we're here today to make a presentation in good faith. We nonetheless have grave doubts based on the evidence as to whether committees are actually hearing and taking positions that reflect witnesses' presentations.
An example is the subcommittee of the finance committee that heard presentations on budget-implementing legislation last year. There has been analysis done of the number of presenters on either side on issues that are similar to the ones we're dealing with now, and it was quite clear that the vast majority were opposed to the types of measures the government eventually put forward and has put forward once again in this budget.
Secondly, there is the issue of whether committees and their reports are actually being listened to. The human resources development standing committee made some clear recommendations. Among other things, they noted that they had heard very clear opposition to the concept of block funding. Yet we saw in legislation and then in budget legislation block funding being put forward. They also noted that at a minimum it was important for consultation to take place with the provinces prior to any measures or any change in CAP. So obviously I think you will understand that there are low expectations in the public around what can be achieved with these committees. Nonetheless, it's the process we have and we're nonetheless pleased to be here.
We're also pleased to call and to make the recommendation to you that you travel across the country and give people across this country an opportunity to present to you on issues that involve fundamental citizenship rights. We argue in our brief that basically the rights in CAP are some of the fundamental rights available to Canadian citizens. To take any action on those rights without taking it across the country at a minimum we feel is really unconscionable.
Beyond that, recommendations should be made to the government to make up for this error, this error of not proceeding with consultations with the provinces in advance of any action being taken on CAP. There is important provincial responsibility here. Not only does the federal government have to show leadership in the area of social policy, we think, but part of that leadership is having the consultation process take place prior to coming up with legislation.
So that's one more recommendation we make. We don't make it because we feel like making it alone; we make it because we're hearing from people, not only our 35,000 members, but many other Canadians. Thanks maybe largely to the agenda being put forward at this point by the government, our membership is growing. Thank you for that, I guess.
We hear messages from people. For example, we circulated an alternative workbook to the workbook being put out by the Department of Human Resources Development. We got these workbooks back - and we'd like to see what the workbooks the government got back said - and we have people making it clear that they want a strong federal role maintained.
We have a couple of quotes from our workbooks to end with:
- Cuts to social programs will simply create more poverty than we already have. Welcome back
to the Dirty Thirties.
Here's one I found interesting: ``Forget the cuts or next election you'll be in need of social assistance.'' I'm hoping that wasn't addressed to the staff of the Council of Canadians. I don't think it was, actually.
In this country we must continue to look after each other. We must be encouraged to think nationally and make our communities stronger. The fundamental message we're hearing from people is that they want to hear about measures at the federal level that will show leadership around social policy and that will allow and create a framework where communities will be able to take care of themselves. So there isn't this conflict between centralization and decentralization. We think there's a clear understanding out there.
I would just make the point that there are a lot of people out there who need the opportunity to speak to this committee so that when you make your decisions you're actually making them with a full understanding of what the long-term implications are for the country.
The Chair: Could I ask you a question to start off, Mr. Bleyer? Do you know of any witness asked to appear before us who has been denied the opportunity?
Mr. Bleyer: Before this committee?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Bleyer: No, Mr. Peterson. I was merely referring to the fact -
The Chair: I'm asking a question.
Mr. Bleyer: My answer to you is this. From what we understand, this committee will not be travelling across the country in order to hear -
The Chair: What would it cost us to travel? Does that matter as far as you're concerned?
Mr. Bleyer: I see the deficit-fighting agenda as the top priority at all levels of operations here, clearly.
The Chair: But do you know how much it would cost?
Mr. Bleyer: I don't think it's comparable to the cost to the country of the measures being proposed in the Canada health and social transfer and the other measures included in this legislation. I think it's worth the investment.
The Chair: Do you know of any witness who's been denied the opportunity to appear before us?
Mr. Bleyer: I think we're the first witnesses, so as far as I know that question hasn't arisen.
The Chair: So you haven't heard of anybody who wants to appear and has been denied that opportunity?
Mr. Bleyer: If you're suggesting that anybody across the country who wants to appear before this committee will receive not only funding for the travel, but compensation in terms of whether or not they lose their job, child care and so on, in order to do it, then I'm happy to hear that offer and I hope it's noted on the record. That's the only way you can make sure the people who will be affected by this legislation will be able to speak to you.
The Chair: I think we have MPs in every community who can come back to us.
Ms Barlow: What concerns us is that in the hearings for the social security review, the people who came before that committee did not make recommendations reflected in the legislation before us here. That's the concern we have. We're asking what that process means. Was that just an exercise in keeping everybody busy? That's the concern we have.
Since this doesn't reflect the kinds of comments and presentations made before these other committees, we're asking how this legislation got drawn up. If the consultation process was real, it should have reflected it. If it's not real, then one is left to wonder what this is about. Is it just being written in Finance and no one has any say? It's a very big concern to people out there who feel they weren't heard.
The Chair: I'm sure you know how budgets are drawn up.
[Translation]
We are going to proceed to questions. Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my question, I would like to comment on what has just been said.
I travelled with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and I can understand your present concerns. What we heard from 90 percent of the people during those travels cannot be found anywhere, neither in the recommendations of the majority report of the Liberals on the Committee on Human Resources Development, nor in the bill before us. There is no relation between the travels and... At times like these, I can understand why you have doubts about the tools of democracy. You are asking yourself how they can be used and to what extent.
Let us look at the Forum on Health. You recommend that the provinces should have been consulted. The government decided to hold the Forum on Health without inviting the provinces and without taking the time to make sure that people were there.
A motion by recorded vote was put before the Committee on Human Resources Development. It was being proposed by the Liberal majority that provincial governments not be heard. It then becomes very difficult to expect the government to act appropriately.
We are in difficult circumstances. If a state government claims to guarantee Canada-wide standards, it necessarily means adequate funding. This is very obvious from Figure 1 of your brief. The provinces cannot be asked to comply with Canada-wide standards if they are increasingly responsible for funding. It is like a teenager leaving the family home.
His or her parents are entitled to say what they want until he or she is on his (her) own. From that moment on the teenager decides what he or she wants and pays for it.
.1650
Given the current budgetary situation, how can we ensure that Canadian standards are respected, without major constitutional change? In your opinion, is it possible?
Ms Barlow: First of all, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development was very expensive, I am sure.
Mr. Crête: Yes.
Ms Barlow: We are told that if this Committee travels, it will be very expensive.
Mr. Crête: If it had cost a great deal and its recommendations had reflected what we heard, it would have been a good investment.
Mr. Bleyer: That is the same thing.
Mr. Crête: But the result is an expense.
Ms Barlow: That is our point of view.
Mr. Bleyer: David might have something to add to the matter.
But just to tell you that we are in absolute agreement on the matter of funding. Fundamentally, if the money is not there, the issue of national standards must be left aside. And this is what is not understood in the government's discourse. We are being told that it will have not only the same powers, but also improved ones. That is impossible and completely illogical. There is an incredible problem in logic there.
On the matter of whether constitutional changes would prove necessary, I am going to give the floor to David.
[English]
Mr. Robinson: I'm unfortunately not a constitutional expert, so I couldn't answer that question, but I would reiterate what Peter had to say. That is, without maintaining the federal cash portion of transfers to the provinces I cannot see how any national standards could be maintained because the federal government has only at its disposal its spending authority. Once that spending authority is gone, the provinces are on their own.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I will try to simplify my question to avoid a constitutional debate. Are there other conditions that are essential to the system's operation in the future? We have spoken of adequate funding so that the standards can be applied, but the other aspect is that the system itself must be efficient. Are there other criteria that would be important in your opinion? We may be able to find them in your recommendations, but I would like to have more details.
Mr. Bleyer: In our recommendations, on the matter of specific program envelopes, it was suggested that the ministers responsible report to Parliament on certain points contained in our recommendations. We know that you have not yet had the opportunity to review them, and we hope that they will be translated by the committee.
We also made other suggestions. In addition, we said that the present sytem is not perfect. Therefore, it is not a question of saying that the current system has to be retained. But before destroying what we have, we should at least know if we are heading towards something better. First, it is a question of money. Second, there are the conditions tied to this money. But it is impossible to speak of conditions before we have the money. We hope that you will find the details you are looking for in the recommendations.
Mr. Crête: What conclusion can we draw if the government maintains its current position? Is it not an automatic balkanization of the way social services are handled in Canada? We already have the example of Alberta, that is presently flouting national standards in one sector. Is this not bound to lead to permanent «differentiation» of Canada's five regions?
Mr. Bleyer: Exactly.
Ms Barlow: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crête. One last question.
Mr. Crête: It isn't a question.
The Chair: Certainly.
Mr. Crête: I would like that the request to have the brief translated be followed up on. I think that, as members of the Committee, we can make that request.
.1655
The Chairman: [Inaudible]
Mr. Crête: Pardon me?
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
Mr. Crête: But that, is the cost of the Canadian bilingual system. If we cannot handle it, that means that we no longer have much money to play with.
The Chair: You are supposed to be a Canadian, Mr. Grubel.
[English]
Mr. Grubel (Capilano - Howe Sound): I would like to make a brief statement. We heard a lot from you about the fact that witnesses before these committees represent the views of the people of Canada. I recently was at a meeting where the clerk of the human resources development committee presented her report, and on a large number of issues there was a huge divergence between the views expressed by the witnesses and the views of the people of Canada as surveyed as a result of scientifically stratified samplings. I just wanted to record this.
I think it is an illusion to believe that your organization represents the average Canadian. Neither do a list of people who have asked to stand here. The average Canadian is out there making a living, producing goods and services to support us and provide the taxes, to do all the good things they want them to do.
I've always wanted to have an opportunity to ask you about your views of democracy, if I may do so, Mr. Chairman. I wish we could have a conversation, but I know from experience this is not possible. A popular model of democracy is that periodically people stand up, communicate with their constituents and make promises about what they're going to do. They get elected and if they don't do what they promised, in the end they get thrown out. The model is that this is true at any level, and in fact it is better if programs are carried out at a closer level to where people both pay for it and they receive the services.
Now, I believe this model. Therefore, I believe that if the people of British Columbia or the people of New Brunswick, in a duly elected democratic process, decide for themselves that they would like now to have means tests, just as an example, before they give welfare payments to needy people, then they should have the right to do so, including not sending money to Ottawa that then comes back with strings attached. That is their right to do so. Therefore, isn't your insistence that Ottawa tell the people of British Columbia or New Brunswick what they must do with their money in looking after the poor in their regions fundamentally undemocratic?
Ms Barlow: I'm glad we have a chance to have even a short conversation on this, because I think what you've raised is terribly key to what we're trying to do here and in fact the struggle going on that we're all watching in the United States right now.
First of all, I want to say that the social security review committee tried to take a balance into account when they reported on the people who came to them and the people they felt didn't come to them, as was demonstrated in the polls, and they've told me that. I know there was an attempt to try to understand that those who are organized to come before them perhaps don't always speak for everyone and don't claim to. We only claim to speak for our members.
So I think that how different this legislation looks from that, which was the compromise, is our concern. We do believe there should be ways to get to people who aren't organized.
I want to say I'm very concerned about the attack. We're hearing more and more about so-called special interest groups and the desire to privatize the family and privatize the individual, privatize education and parents, and therefore privatize poverty. When people come together in groups like ours they are social advocates, and that is how this country was born. No governments gave us anything. This was borne by Canadians. Canadians worked and fought and in some cases died for this country to build the kind of social infrastructure we have.
In terms of social programs, I don't disagree that there has to be more decision-making about delivery at the local level. I said that right at the beginning. There is a distinction between maintaining national social standards - which can be, by the way, negotiated between the provincial and federal governments and doesn't have to be given to the provinces by the federal government - there's a way you can do that but still come to an agreement on common standards. It's called a nation state. If you don't have those, if you don't have those ribbons of national purpose that pull you together....
.1700
Social programs did not cause the debt and the deficit. You cannot find one single piece of proof, one single economic study that will show that. In fact, David has put together finance department studies, studies from the Canadian Tax Foundation, and studies from Statistics Canada that show, without question, that the debt and the deficit have not been caused by social programs. Yet social programs are having to take the hit. I think there are ways of bringing democracy closer to the people while still maintaining a thing called a nation state.
Mr. Grubel, what worries me about your vision is that I don't see how we'd maintain a country called Canada; we'd have nothing in common. That's what we're watching now in the United States, where people say: ``All I care about now is the turf outside of my window. I only want the local sheriff. I don't recognize the national government; I only recognize the most local authority.'' That's what was on television last night, the people in Michigan. I would argue that leads to anarchy. I'm not suggesting this legislation goes that far, but this legislation could allow that kind of thinking.
Mr. Grubel: I have just one brief rebuttal. I think it is preposterous for you to say that the United States, which was created on the basis of a very limited government, was not a powerful, unified country during the first 150 years. The founding fathers of the United States said that your only responsibility was foreign representation and free trade within the United States and the rest was to be done by the states. It is now having tremendous centrifugal forces, exactly because the central authorities have drawn to them powers that the people in the states did not want them to have. That is what the dispute is about.
Ms Barlow: We have a fundamentally different way of looking at this.
Mr. Grubel: I understand, but you are making a false assumption.
Ms Barlow: No, I'm not making a false argument. There has been no building of a social consensus and that's what you're seeing. The lack of a social consensus in the United States is causing it to break down. That's why we have gone through depressions and recessions and been less hurt in this country, because we had that social infrastructure.
Mr. Grubel: I know everybody else wants to have a chance, but let me just say this: you have said that there can be no nation state unless there is an elitist dictating of social program standards from Ottawa. I'm taking you on. Are you saying that Canada was not a country before the 1960s when the Ottawa government took on all of those responsibilities?
Ms Barlow: You go back and look at the 1930s and look at the lack of social consensus. When Canadians came back from the First World War they wanted a country that heroes could come back to and they demanded of their government a social infrastructure to go with the nation state that had been born in the Second World War. Mr. Grubel, I suggest that you go back and read your history.
Mr. Grubel: I suggest you do the same.
Ms Barlow: We are a different people because we built on a different set of systems.
Mr. Grubel: But you are making an assertion that the modern nation state cannot exist unless you have centralized authority.
Ms Barlow: The majority of Canadians want national social programs. Go and read your polls, Mr. Grubel.
Mr. Grubel: That is, however, a question that will be decided -
Ms Barlow: By you, unfortunately.
Mr. Grubel: - by the upcoming election.
Mr. Bleyer: Mr. Grubel, I think you're now on the record as having supported a return to the 1930s and as preferring the United States to Canada, and maybe that's -
Ms Barlow: A good place to leave it.
Mr. Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): The work in this committee is taken very seriously as to the witnesses we bring in and the responses we give them. We do respond and we do make amendments. In the fall we heard from about 500 witnesses during the pre-budget consultations
The Chair: It was over 600.
Mr. Walker: It was over 600. We're likely to be on the road again next fall for the next pre-budget consultations.
I would challenge anybody to say that the views of the people who came to see us were not represented in part, if not in full in some cases, in our report, between the majority report and the minority report. There was a wide range of opinions. We also think that when we challenge witnesses - and you've seen yourself challenged here - we make sure that witnesses participate with us and show respect for the committee, as the committee shows respect for the witnesses. We don't lend ourselves to hyperbole here in our responses, nor do we ask the witnesses to respond in kind.
.1705
It warms my heart to see that the governments of Mackenzie King, St. Laurent and Pearson are now so high on the list of the critiques of government. Soon, who knows, maybe Trudeau will also be honoured for his progressive legislation. Having said that, we've come to another position in our development where people are wondering whether or not we're taking things in the right direction and moving in the right spirit. That's a legitimate question for the country to ask.
As we and people from outside criticize the government for withdrawing from services, I think we should be very careful of the record. I can give you a small example. In Manitoba there's a great hue and cry that we're about to destroy all social and health services in the system and that we are taking out an extra $30 million when the revenues of the provincial government are rising $400 million. To say that we're destroying something when in fact we're still sending to the provincial government $1.1 billion should be taken in context.
Overall, next year the CHST is going to be distributing $13 billion in Canada. I think that's a statement of commitment to social and health policy. Anybody who argues that the present patchwork of the Canada Assistance Plan, EPF, and the Canada Health Act together are benchmarks for the only way we can do things in this country is not correct in their analysis. I think there are better ways of doing it.
I'd like to point out that the legislation very specifically states:
- ``13.(3) The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the
provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent, a set of shared
principles and objectives for the other social programs referred to in paragraph (1)(c) that could
underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer.''
Ms Barlow: [Inaudible] ...I'm sorry.
Mr. Walker: History will open up the books to the cabinet meetings and so forth and it will show they have been working together and that there's been an effort put forward. If they weren't working together, we would not be here in front of the finance committee asking us to approve that the Minister of Human Resources be given a mandate.
I would challenge you to go back into the legislative books and budgets for the last 25 years and find a case where a piece of financial legislation has mandated the social policy minister to go out to develop criteria, to talk and to develop a program further.
As we go through this, Mr. Chair, we should be careful that we're all contributing to the debate, and if we're being asked to make specific amendments, that those amendments be presented to us and that we slow down the rhetoric about how we're Americanizing the process, how we're trying to ruin the poor and move away from social assistance. Those of us who represent very, very poor constituencies are very conscious of the impact it might be having. We're not about to walk away from these people and we're not about to destroy their livelihood. There's good will around the table and I encourage you to think of it that way. Thank you.
Ms Barlow: Mr. Walker, I want to be really clear that we're not imputing any negative personal reasons to you or assuming that you have an agenda here that's anything but what you feel your constituents want and that you want to maintain the best of the Liberal tradition.
The point is that when we step away from the agreed upon national standards that can be nationally enforced, which this legislation represents, we open the door to people who have a very different point of view from yours about how low it should go.
The president of the National Bank of Canada the other day said that social programs should be paid for by the very lowest level of government because they can't raise funds. The levels of government that can't borrow should be the ones that turn around and deliver it. I'm not suggesting that's your intent in this legislation, but we have to take a look at this with our eyes open. This is going to be where some people take it.
I've studied the health care situation in Manitoba and I know that some provincial hospitals are being turned over to a company called We Care. It comes in and just fires the nurses to bring them back on a contingency basis. It doesn't want to deal with collective bargaining. These things happen a piece at a time.
.1710
I want to remind the committee that once you start privatizing or provinces are allowed to start privatizing something that has been in the public realm, under NAFTA it would be next to impossible to get back because you'd have to pay financial compensation to the American industry that was not allowed to come in, like the big American hospital corporations, which have their eye on Canada, and don't think they don't. Columbia Corporation, which says it wants to be the Wal-Mart of the health care industry in the world by the year 2000, has its eyes on Alberta and Manitoba.
So I'm not suggesting this was your intent. We're trying to look at what this piece of legislation could be used for and how it could be used by people who don't share a commitment to a social infrastructure. We've heard it here today; it's not something we're dreaming up.
Mr. Walker: As one last point of clarification, there's nothing in the legislation that speaks beyond the next two years. So any insinuation that we are running out of cash or that it's the way the future goes should be, for the record, just speculation. It might be good speculation because people do research, but it's not in the act in any way, shape or form.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Thank you for being here. You are listened to and your ideas do spark thought. As you say, the legislation may be used by people who don't think the way Mr. Walker thinks and it will be abused, but let's look at how it might be used by people who think like you and I do, who are focusing here on a fundamental issue of making sure that the programs we have for Canadians meet their needs, that they give us what we want and expect.
Clearly if we go back to the report of the HRD committee, we heard that our social programs aren't working right now. They're very important to us and thank goodness we have them, but they're not working for us right now.
As I listened to your presentation I heard that your answer to that is the thing that will help that is strong national standards; we have to have national standards. But when I look back at the testimony of the committee, there were others who said it's national standards that are getting in our way and that are stopping us through their restrictive controls from presenting to our people some of the programs we want to present. That's one part of the testimony. I'm not saying it's the only one, but let's follow it through.
We know in fact the constitutional responsibility for these programs lies with the provinces. What we have then is the provinces with the responsibility, but under the structure we have now it is the provinces that don't have all the accountability. So it has been easy for them to spend the money that we think is going to education, to social programs, on highways or whatever. We don't have control over that. We just don't.
Isn't it possible that if in fact under this structure they not only have the responsibility but by golly the accountability, there is a chance we may come up with programs that are more responsive and better? I would ask you, is that a possibility?
Then I'd come back to you when you say that we're talking about national standards. As I heard your representation, until you spoke about the ribbons and about negotiated standards, I feared you were saying under this structure it's all for naught because there won't be any money and the only way we can negotiate national standards is with money.
I'd ask you to consider that perhaps there are other options, there are other negotiated responsibilities, and that maybe the role of the federal government is to truly act as a facilitator of provinces that have the responsibility and accountability for this, to bring them together and say yes, of course it is a country, it is Canada, and we do want to have common programs province to province to province, and let's negotiate those together without the hammer of money; we'll make sure you have money and that you have the responsibility and accountability to spend it, but let's sit down and decide what it is to be a country and what programs are consistent and standardized among us.
I ask if there isn't a way of looking at this legislation in a different light that is very positive and might provide us with what we're really looking for, which are quality programs that support people who need support.
Ms Barlow: I think probably each of us wants to say that you've raised very thoughtful questions that get to the heart of what we're trying to deal with here.
I want to say two things. One is that we very much understand that we're low on money. We're not here being foolish and saying to pull it out of a hat. We understand that. We continue to dispute that social programs should be blamed for it. We feel that there are places to find that money, but that's for another discussion.
.1715
So we understand that the negotiations could take place in other ways around standards as opposed to always looking at dollars. But I want to say to you, Mrs. Stewart, when you ask if it is possible that some provinces may take it to the lowest common denominator, but some may go higher, yes. But Martin Luther King said legislation may not change the heart, but it will restrain the heartless. That's why you have legislation, for those who would not....
Mrs. Stewart: [Inaudible]...the provincial level where there are elected delegates. Don't forget that.
Ms Barlow: It gets taken away a piece at a time.
Mr. Bleyer: Again I think your question is very.... I know you're in a hurry.
The Chair: I only have two more questioners. It's up to you.
Mr. Bleyer: I have a very brief response. From your question or comment, it seems to me that there is no particular reason why we shouldn't have minimum national standards. All the national standards provide is the lowest common denominator. Absolutely, there are provinces that will want to do wonderful things for the people in that particular province that will be very reflective of their specific community needs. But is there some particular reason why we or this government would not want to maintain and uphold a minimum level of standards from coast to coast for all the reasons that you yourself mentioned? It's absolutely not contradicting the points you're making.
But this legislation, while it does hold open the potential to a whole variety, letting a million flowers bloom - what it does is eliminate that minimum standard. So those flowers that are blooming may be pretty ugly flowers, unfortunately. We might not want to qualify them as flowers. Why is there no commitment to maintaining that minimum standard? It's not some overwhelming, overarching hammer on the provinces. It's basic minimum standards.
Mrs. Stewart: Perhaps this provides us the opportunity to negotiate the minimum standards for once and have an agreement. I would just say to you, I don't see anything in here that precludes that activity from happening. And, by golly, I think it's a possibility.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
I too want to thank you for coming because it does cause creative thoughts and sharing of imaginations of what we can do together.
On the point of the human resources committee report as they travelled the country, I think we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that each member of Parliament was holding town hall meetings in their individual ridings at the same time. I held seven or eight in my community town hall, and this is where I got the views of the everyday working person - not special interest groups or committees that were so designated, but working people. This is where we heard a lot of the things that have come about in the legislation and in Bill C-76. People have indicated to us that with a lot of strings attached in cost-sharing arrangements, often there's duplication; there are limitations as to what can and cannot be done, and therefore a little more flexibility might be provided.
Do you not think that the members of Parliament hear from their individuals? I'm holding meetings on Saturday and Sunday with CLC in my riding this weekend to hear their concerns. I'll bring those views back; that's what I'm elected to do. Don't you think that's worth while for input?
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mrs. Brushett. I certainly agree with you.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): I'll be very brief. As a former municipal official, I kind of took offence from your statements. We always said, even the union of municipalities, give us the money; we're close to the people and we'll know how to handle it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Fewchuk.
I wish we had more time. It's not by chance that you were our first witness from outside the government sector. You present the issues very cogently and we take your representation very seriously. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
The meeting is adjourned.