[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
.1530 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
The finance committee is continuing its reference into Bill C-76. With us are our first witnesses: Keith Banting, professor, Queen's University, and Robin Boadway, also a professor from Queen's University.
Professor Keith Banting (Political Studies and School of Public Administration, Queen's University): We would like to begin with a few introductory remarks. We have circulated a brief statement to members of the committee, and it was translated. We've also submitted a couple of background papers and those have also been circulated for members of the committee.
I will briefly speak to the opening presentation and my colleague will make some supplementary remarks. We will be happy to answer as best we can any questions members of the committee may have.
We begin by noting that the 1995 budget is a landmark in the evolution of Canadian public policy. It has tackled the deficit in a vigorous way and it has introduced new structure, or new program elements, to the federal government, most importantly the Canada Health and Social Transfer.
Our concern is to emphasize the long-term consequences of this budget and this piece of legislation, because we think it's important that there be a vigorous debate about the long-term consequences for Canada, to ensure that irreversible effects don't occur without that kind of debate.
Our basic view is that this legislation has important benefits but that we need to secure those benefits and to build on them. In particular, we think the Canada Health and Social Transfer should be made an enduring part of the program structure of the federal government rather than simply a temporary visitor. As constituted at present in Bill C-76, as members will be aware, once introduced the Canada health and social transfer will automatically begin to fade away. Because this transfer embodies important Canadian values, we think its disappearance would make a big change in Canada, one that would be regrettable.
The next part of our statement talks a bit about what Bill C-76 does in this area. I will pass over that quickly, because I'm sure members of the committee are well aware of the important points in it. We simply note in passing that there is no immediate change in the structure of the Canada Health Act itself, that provincial deviations from the basic principles of the Canada health care system would trigger the same kind of reductions in federal support as in the past. There is a change in the area of social welfare in that the provincial governments would have significantly greater discretion than in the past. Our brief notes a number of ways in which that would be true.
The point we would make is that there are important benefits to the approach of block funding, as implicit in the Canada Health and Social Transfer, particularly in giving provinces greater flexibility in integrating welfare programs with expenditure services and support for the working poor. We also see some risks in this approach. Welfare services, social assistance, will be under tremendous budgetary pressure at the provincial level. There are clearly people in the social service sector in this country worried that in fact these programs will face quite significant reductions. We think these are fears that cannot be lightly dismissed.
It is for this reason that we place great stress on the statement in the federal budget that:
- The federal government, under the leadership of 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 underlie the new transfer.
For us, then, the critical issue is whether the Canada health and social transfer is a continuing commitment of the Government of Canada or whether it is a temporary provision at best. This turns quickly to the issue of the formula which underpins the Canada health and social transfer and brings us to the distinction between the tax points and the cash component of the transfer.
.1535
Under existing legislation the federal contribution to medicare, post-secondary education and social welfare will simply fade away over time. This is because, to our mind, the tax points were clearly transferred to the provincial governments in 1977. There is no way the federal government can recapture those tax points or attach special conditions to them. The only current contribution to these programs, the only one that counts in any significant way, is the federal cash transfer. Certainly it is the only component giving the federal government any presence, any role in the definition of future principles and any capacity to maintain the Canada health and social transfer, the Canada Health Act, and the idea of a prohibition on residency requirements for social assistance.
Under existing legislation the cash transfer will steadily decline. Somewhere around the end of the first decade of the next century the cash transfer will disappear completely. It will be so small as to have no real effect well before then.
The real question for us concerns the strength of the federal commitment to the principles in the Canada Health Act, to the prohibition of residency requirements under social assistance, and to any national principles or objectives that might be developed with the provinces in the coming months. Are these enduring commitments rooted in values that matter and that persist, or are they merely temporary preferences, to be abandoned quietly over the next decade?
This brings us to the central question, which in many ways is at the heart of this debate: Is there a role for national principles or objectives in social programs that matter most to Canadians? To our mind this question turns on the nature of Canada as a community. Are there social rights and obligations all Canadians share as citizens, or are we a series of regional communities, a community of communities as one former prime minister described us? Our personal answer to this question is relatively simple.
For us, Canadians as Canadians have obligations to each other that go well beyond the interregional laundering of money. For us, Canada is a more meaningful concept if there are important spheres of shared experience, critical programs such as health care and elements of our social protection that we set in common as a country.
We would suggest that the very Constitution of the country suggests this and we cite section 36.1 of the Constitution, which commits the federal government to among other things providing equal opportunities for the well-being of all Canadians and providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. We suggest that this component of the Constitution itself is a powerful moral message, that the federal government is committed and should always remain committed to ensuring that it is involved in the protection of the well-being of all Canadians.
Therefore, the most important thing about this legislation is that the federal government should sever the link between the tax points and the cash transfer and consolidate the Canada health and social transfer as an enduring part of the program structure of the Government of Canada. The level at which the transfer should be stabilized is a matter of debate, inevitably to be a compromise between the need to reduce the fiscal deficit of the federal government on one side and the need to retain sufficient cash to give credibility to the idea of federal sanctions on the other.
Without such a commitment to make the Canada health and social transfer an enduring part of the program structure of the Government of Canada, we cannot conceive of provincial governments paying much attention to an invitation from the Minister of Human Resources Development to discuss national principles or objectives. Why should they? Without such a commitment the ability of the federal government to sustain the basic principles embedded in the Canada Health Act and the prohibition on residency requirements for social assistance will simply fade away.
.1540
Let us make the point as explicitly as possible. We do not believe the Canadian people would accept the open repeal of the Canada Health Act. But the slow, quiet erosion of the federal cash transfer has the same effect. In our view, declaring the inviolability of the Canada Health Act but then slowly abandoning the means of sustaining it is not a credible position.
Now is the time for transparency in the Government of Canadian affairs. The federal government should confirm its commitment to the Canada Health Act and the possibility of national principles in social welfare by making the Canada Health and Social Transfer an enduring program. Or, the federal government should accept that it no longer believes in or no longer believes it can afford the Canada Health Act and the prohibition on residency requirements in social assistance and therefore it should plan to repeal them slowly. These strike us as the real choices before Canada.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank members of the committee for their attention. We wish you well in your deliberations. These are critical issues. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. As well, we have attached two background documents that you may find helpful in your discussions.
My colleague may want to add a word or two.
Professor Robin Boadway (Sir Edward Peacock Professor of Economic Theory, Queen's University): Mr. Chairman, I'll just add two points to what Professor Banting has said.
First of all, as an economist I certainly recognize the imperatives of deficit reduction and the need for the burden of deficit reduction to be widely shared. However, I'd also point out that to implement the Canada health and social transfer in its current structural form would entail the federal cash contribution to provincial social programs taking a disproportionate hit. By my calculations it would be more than twice that of other program expenditures over the next couple of years and ultimately, of course, 100% by some time early in the next century. There is no imperative that says this should be the case.
Second, I should emphasize that in arguing for a consolidation of the cash component of the CHST and for retaining a measure of spending power at the federal level we're not really opposed to decentralizing social program design and delivery to the provinces. Clearly they're capable of responsible and innovative decision making in these areas.
We do, however, think there are certain national broad principles of equity and efficiency that social programs should conform to, principles that are at least partly embedded in the Constitution Act, especially in section 36. Adherence to these principles should not unduly constrain the provinces in the efficient delivery of these services.
In our view, the Canada Health Act has struck roughly the right balance between maintenance of national standards and decentralization of a decision-making responsibility to the provinces. It'll take time to develop similar standards in the area of social assistance and may indeed have to wait the outcome of the social policy reform debate that's due to be taken up again. If nothing else, the retention of the cash component of the Canada health and social transfer will allow us to buy the time that's necessary to come to a national consensus about the future of federal-provincial fiscal relations and the role of the federal government in delivering social programs.
The Chair: What both of you have said makes a great deal of sense.
[Translation]
We will now begin with the questions from Mr. Dubé, please.
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentation which was brief and clear.
However, I find some difficulty with it, because both of you seem to be concerned with the tax points which are causing the federal government to lose control of social programs.
I understand the goals of fairness that you are defending. However, you seem to have forgotten one thing: the three areas that you talked about-health, postsecondary education and social assistance-are all matters of provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. I would like to hear your opinion on this point and then I will have a second question for
.1545
[English]
Prof. Banting: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the question asked, it was how we reconcile our concerns about the federal presence in these programs with the fact that these are in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
I think we have always accepted these are provincial areas of jurisdiction. But we also have believed that in Canada, over a very long period, the federal government has developed a role through provisions of financial support to provinces that we think is very valuable.
We think the Canadian compromise, if you will, of very broad principles that we share in common as citizens of this country combined with provincial design and delivery of the program structure itself is a very wise compromise. We don't think the broad principles that the federal government has set are particularly restrictive in the area of the Canada Health Act.
The province of Quebec has made very interesting use of the flexibility in the legislation, i.e., to combine in an interesting and innovative way the delivery of health care and social services at the community level in the local community agencies. We think this is an example of the flexibility of the system, being able to retain broad principles so that all Canadians as citizens can expect certain standards or broad types of social programs but leaving to the provinces a capacity to build or deliver on those principles in a way that reflects their own culture, their own preferences and their own societies. There is a compromise between these two that in our mind works well.
Prof. Boadway: I'll just add that in the translation I received of your question you made reference to the federal government control of social programs. I would like to emphasize, and supporting what my colleague has said, that we're really not advocating any federal control of social programs. The legislative responsibility would certainly remain at the provincial level. What's really at stake is simply a set of unobtrusive minimum national standards to which most Canadians would like national programs to conform. These would reflect basic principles of equity and citizenship that are consistent with what one finds in the written Constitution.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: In that spirit, would you be open to an approach that would see the federal government discussing with the provincial governments a set of national criteria or objectives in a spirit of cooperation, of exchange that would see an agreement being reached on minimum objectives? If an agreement was not possible, the federal government would have a say, because there is always the matter of transfers, either in the form of tax points or in some other form. Do you understand my question, that is to say, is the cooperative formula preferable to a formula that is handed down from above?
[English]
Prof. Banting: The short answer to that is yes. That's why we think the invitation to the provinces from the federal government to enter into discussions about principles governing social assistance and social service programs is very important. We think it's critical the federal government declare it will continue to contribute to those programs through the Canada health and social transfer to actually make federal participation in those discussions meaningful.
The existing legislation already anticipates the kind of approach that you have. We note that the legislation calls for these principles to be developed through mutual consent. To our mind, this is a new concept in the structure of federal-provincial agreements, the concept of mutual consent. I think it's going to be an interesting challenge to give that concept definition. Whether that means a consensus, unanimity, or whether it provides for bilateral relations, all these will be interesting questions to be explored in the coming months.
.1550
It's clear, given the nature of our system and the evolution of the use of the federal spending power, that some form of mutual agreement is superior to the kinds of conflicts that emerge if we can't achieve it. My first instinct is to say yes. The way the legislation sets out strikes me as anticipating precisely your suggestion. We just hope the federal government has enough on the table to be listened to in those conversations.
The Chair: Mrs. Hayes, welcome to the committee. I believe this is your first appearance as a member here.
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): Yes, it is. Thank you.
I must admit it might take me a bit to catch up to speed, but I might simply ask you to comment on something that was in your presentation and that I found interesting. You stated it is essential the federal government sever the link between the tax points and the cash transfer and consolidate the Canada Health and Social Transfer. I don't see that fully explained here. Why is that a necessary part of your presentation? Maybe you could expand on it.
Prof. Boadway: This is a very important point and I think one that many people are not aware of; certainly the public is not aware of it. It concerns the technical way in which the cash contribution is calculated for the purposes of the Canada health and social transfer. It's calculated by taking an allotment of revenues to each province, through the Canada health and social transfer, and subtracting from that allotment something referred to as the tax point transfer, which in effect is the value to the provinces of tax points that were turned over to them in 1977, almost 20 years ago, as part of the Established Programs Financing arrangements.
The point we're making in the presentation, and no doubt one you'll hear several times in the coming days, is that the existence of the tax point transfer as a component of the Canada health and social transfer almost implies that the cash component will gradually dwindle and fall to zero some time early enough in the next century, and there is a reason for that.
The value of the tax point transfer, which is essentially tax revenues raised by the provinces themselves from their own tax points and really has nothing to do with the federal government's contribution, is and has been increasing more rapidly than the rate of growth of the predecessor to the CHST, the established program funding which rose at the rate of growth of the GNP.
Tax points rise more rapidly than that. Therefore the cash component, which is a residual, falls. Calculations done by various people all seem to indicate that even if the overall amount of the Canada health and social transfer were to rise at the rate of growth of GNP, which is not at all certain given the deficit reduction problem, the cash component would fall. Once the cash component is gone, it's gone. There's no leverage; the federal government is no longer making any transfers to the provinces and therefore the conditions outlined in the Canada Health Act and reiterated in Bill C-76, the penalties implied there, could no longer be made good.
Mrs. Hayes: You were saying it is revenues raised by the provinces, that tax points are provincial money. My understanding was that it was tax revenue ceded to the province that otherwise would have come to the federal government but they give them the tax points to stay within the province. In effect it's the federal government ceding money that otherwise would come to it and letting it stay in the province. Did I misunderstand that in my own interpretation?
Prof. Boadway: Somebody might have told you that. I can understand why you might think that. In fact what the tax point transfer consisted of was a turning over to the provinces in 1977 - ceding would be a word - the withdrawal by the federal government or reduction in the federal tax rate in 1977, providing room for the provinces to increase their tax rates and raise the same amount of revenue. Once the federal government reduced its tax rates and allowed the provinces to raise theirs, it was a done deal. It's very difficult to undo and recoup the tax points for the federal government.
From an economic perspective at least and for all intents and purposes these tax points are now part of the revenues raised by the provinces for their own purposes. I don't think they're properly viewed as transfers from the federal government to the provinces.
.1555
Mrs. Hayes: On that line, if we have tax points that are moneys that don't go to the federal government but remain within the province, they would over a period of time reflect the economy and needs of the province more realistically than cash handed to the province, would they not?
Maybe you could comment on this. Rather than saying the government should somehow strike a balance between debt and deficit management and what the province needs, would not the instrument of tax points - i.e., money the federal government doesn't collect but allows the provincial government to collect to reflect its own economy - in fact be a very appropriate way for the province to indeed have the money it needs for its health programs?
Prof. Boadway: Yes, there's no reason you can't make moneys available to the provinces by giving them tax room and letting them raise their own revenues, which is essentially what you're saying. There is also another aspect to it, which is that these tax points are equalized, but let's not get into that.
The point is if you decide that's the way you want the provinces to finance their programs - by raising their own revenues - and you don't want the federal government to retain the revenue-raising capacity and give part of the moneys to the provinces in cash, then you're implicitly saying you don't want the federal government to be able to use the cash transfers for whatever national purposes it might want to use them.
The argument we're making here is there are some legitimate reasons the federal government might want to maintain indefinitely a cash contribution to social programs, precisely to be able to have a sanction to make sure the provinces abide by the principles of, say, the Canada Health Act.
The Chair: Good questions, Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
Mrs. Stewart, please.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Thank you both for being here. Forgive me if I ask you to reiterate some points you've made, but your presentation is extremely important and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
I am interpreting your position as saying that notionally the block transfer is not a bad thing, that notionally the idea of providing flexibility and the way it's described here with minimum standards is not the death knell of social programs and is not going to devastate Canadian social structure, the safety net and that sort of thing. Is that correct?
Prof. Banting: What we're saying is the basic principle of a block grant does not have to do that; that's right. The Canada health and social transfer has important advantages. It provides flexibility and avoids some of the rigidities and difficulties, implicit in the old system, of linking social and health programs.
But we do think the block transfer should also be accompanied by certain principles or objectives that the federal government sets and sustains, because it is making a cash contribution to these programs, the Canada Health Act being the most important, in our minds. The prohibition on residency requirements for social assistance is clearly important.
We would hope that in the process of negotiations Canada could arrive at some agreements on some of the others, because there are dangers in pulling some of the conditions now implicit in the Canada Assistance Plan. There's no question there are -
Mrs. Stewart: But you see in the context of Bill C-76 nothing that would stop us from doing those things at this point?
Prof. Banting: Well, the issue becomes whether or not the negotiations that are anticipated in both the budget and the legislation will be meaningful and whether or not the federal government will go into those in a leadership position. that turns on the issue of whether it will have money on the table.
Mrs. Stewart: Let's talk about that.
Dr. Boadway, you've said we will hear this at committee many times. You started to talk about the actual understanding of tax points versus cash transfers. Quite frankly we haven't heard it many times, and that's why it's so important for you to be here.
The assumption in the testimony we've heard has been that we will go down to zero and there will be no cash leverage, but that's not necessarily so. It doesn't have to happen that way.
Prof. Boadway: As Bill C-76 is written and as the budget seems to imply, under the existing structure of the Canada health and social transfer, that will happen. It will go down to zero.
What we're suggesting is that the Canada health and social transfer should be defined as a cash transfer, full stop. You should get the tax points out of there.
.1600
Mrs. Stewart: And there's nothing constitutionally that would stop us from doing that should we so desire, correct?
Prof. Boadway: Correct.
Mrs. Stewart: That's helpful.
Let's turn to the idea of this mutual consent. As you describe, it's something that's very new and different, the notion that we may in fact be talking here about new strategies of federalism and making Canada work perhaps in a different way.
There are things that might suggest to us - and you point particularly to the Constitution - that the provinces and the federal government must in fact respond in that regard and build consensus and programs that would respond to the needs of all Canadians. But you're suggesting we really can't do it without that cash hammer, at this point anyway.
Prof. Banting: Yes, we think it's going to be extremely difficult to build national consensus or mutual consent around the issues, which are going to very difficult issues. We don't underestimate the pressures the governments are under. We think it will be very difficult for the federal government to show leadership or participate effectively in those discussions if the provincial governments see it as a temporary player only. By extrapolation, we think it would be very difficult for a consensus to emerge without the capacity of federal leadership.
Mrs. Stewart: One final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
In conversation with the parliamentary secretary - and we both stand to be corrected - we were talking about the reduction in the cash transfer from 17% to 15% to 13%. In your documentation you say we have to sever the link between the tax points and the cash transfer. There has to be sufficient cash. You indicate that we need some time to determine what that amount might be.
Hypothetically, would you give me some direction? How much do we need to maintain a real presence?
Prof. Boadway: I don't think there's any correct number. I don't think anybody is an expert on this or anybody could tell you how much cash transfer you need for the federal government to be able carry the weight that it needs to carry in coming about with a national consensus. I certainly would be content with starting with the cash transfer as it now exists, preventing it from eroding, letting it grow at the rate of GNP and just not letting it erode any further. I would view that as being a minimum. Others might view it as being more than enough; others might view it as being less than enough.
Mrs. Stewart: We have some flexibility in that area.
Prof. Banting: I would just add to that. One way to answer the question is to ask if there is some proportion that the federal government shouldn't fall below, because to fall below it becomes so marginal that the provincial governments do not have to pay attention.
I would think if you fall much below say 18% or 20% of the total cost of running these programs, the federal government becomes a pretty marginal player. I think we're getting down toward 20% now.
Mr. Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): On behalf of all the members of the committee, I would like to thank the two witnesses. We're very fortunate to have, from the academic world, two of the foremost experts in their fields. I appreciate their taking the time to travel and visit with us and lend their expertise.
We've said this to many witness. It's new ground for the federal government, and therefore we're proceeding with a great deal of care. There are things this government has been committed to in the past that we're very proud of and we want to make sure we're doing the right thing. It's not only the fiscal mandate that we have, but we also have a social policy mandate. Your comments are very important.
One of the impressions that we've left - and I think for the record I'd just want to make sure we all understand each other - is that the legislation is in fact silent on the disappearance of the cash contributions. The bill is very careful and we've been very careful as a government, if I can speak from a finance point of view, subject to some criticisms in the marketplace, to get beyond two-year projections in what we're doing. The projections made that we are out of a cash business are based on our continuing the policies that have been developed over the last six or seven years. I want to be clear that there's nothing in the legislation that says that is what we are doing.
The cash disappearance and the date of its disappearance - if it does disappear - are in fact contingent upon government policies that may change. One of the reasons why this particular piece of legislation was attractive to me in its early forms was that with relative ease a government can reintroduce its presence without going through huge new legislative changes. That is to say, you could reassert the cash contributions if you felt like it. But there's nothing here; the legislation doesn't state that we're out of a cash contribution. It states that the next two years are being reduced by x amount and y amount of money.
.1605
The question of presence is a really critical one. For example, the CAUT was in this morning and it argued that we change the name of it to the Canada health, education and social transfer which would not be universally welcomed across the country, as you know. But my own opinion is that going back to 1977 the federal government hasn't had a lot of presence in education. In fact, Professor Paul Thomas, writing right after that in 1978 and 1979, said education was going to be done in by that new act.
The specific question I have - and you can respond to those various comments if you want - was the question of tax points. If by legislation - and I'm talking at the theoretical level now - we abandoned a certain field and said these are yours, to me the most interesting question is why we can no longer legitimately count them as a contribution and why we can't change that. Over to you.
Prof. Boadway: You made a number of excellent points and I'll just respond to two or three of them. I don't want to feel like an academic here, but the logic of the last statement is that you should count all the taxes the provinces raise under income tax as being federal contributions, because they've all been turned over to the provinces at some point since the Second World War.
In the Second World War the federal government raised all the income taxes and gradually turned over tax room to the provinces. I think as a practical matter it would be very difficult for the federal government to undo any significant amount of the tax point transfer it has made to the provinces. It would require the government to go in and unilaterally raise federal tax rates and hope that the provinces would reduce theirs to offset that. There's no guarantee that this would happen.
I would like to come back to the points you made at the beginning and give a slightly different perspective, not that I disagree with what you said. It's certainly true that Bill C-76 doesn't say the cash contributions are going to fall. If I read it properly, Bill C-76 gave a definition of tax point transfers. It mentioned that these tax point transfers were going to be calculated in such and such a way and were going to be subtracted from the overall Canada health and social transfer, which is something that has only been spelled out for the next two years, and correctly so.
On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to assume that if you accept what I said earlier about it being very difficult to undo the tax points that have already been transferred, it's easy to calculate how much those tax points are going to be worth as we go through time over the next 10 or 15 years. It's easy to then say, well, what would it take in terms of the overall Canada health and social transfer, how much would it have to rise, to keep the cash component constant? The answer is it would have to rise a lot more rapidly than EPF has been rising historically since 1977. It would have to be rising more rapidly than the rate of growth of GNP, for example.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people who haven't been told otherwise to make a calculation that assumes, generously, I think, that the Canada health and social transfer is going to rise at the rate of GNP. They may calculate how much the tax points are going to rise, which is a straightforward calculation to do, and come to the conclusion that the cash component is going to dwindle to zero. I don't view that as being particularly unreasonable.
Mr. Walker: As long as it's clear it's a projection, though.
Prof. Boadway: Yes, certainly.
Prof. Banting: Can I just add to that. I don't think the legislation is silent on the question. It doesn't declare that the cash component will decline to zero, but it's not silent. It doesn't declare it, but I think there's a pretty strong hint implicit in the definition of the transfer and the inclusion of the tax points in it. We might disagree about how one reads the tea leaves of the future, but I think there is a pretty strong hint of the direction.
On the question of title and whether you should add education to it, my answer is that I don't particularly care what you call it, as long as you send it.
Mr. Walker: Do I have time for one more?
The Chair: Yes, but only based on the quality of the questions you've asked so far.
Mr. Walker: One of the issues the federal government has been frustrated with for many years, of course, is that there's a romanticism that always builds up around what has just been lost. I can remember in the academic world, both in public administration as well as in the different organizations, people being crazed by EPF. They were so crazed by EPF they couldn't understand it until we tried to change it last year. Then they said EPF was the best possible thing that ever happened.
.1610
The Canada Assistance Plan, particularly the premable, is really a cornerstone of Canadian public policy and one that I very much respect. On the other hand, it's very wrong to say that it has given the federal government a presence beyond the provincial bureaucracies, that the average person picking up welfare does not see the Canada Assistance Plan. I would dare say that the influence of the federal government on the structure of post-secondary education, the way it professes organizing time and so forth, is absolutely minimal.
This is no surprise to you, but one of the frustrations we have is the halfway house of being publicly - and in many ways in the value system of Canada - held to be responsible. It's a great responsibility, but in a practical way is not able to deliver that responsibility to the classroom or to the social assistance door. Do you have any response to that?
Prof. Banting: I understand the frustration. It has been a frustration of federal governments for a generation. It produces what can sometimes seem to be inexplicable disagreements about which logo goes where and so on. Fundamentally I understand the federal government's frustration, no question.
Having said that, I don't think you should underestimate the importance of the federal role because the federal role has been critical to the way in which the health care system in this country has evolved, its basic structure. I think elements of that federal role have been critical to some of the things that Canadians value most highly about their country.
I would also not understate the importance of the Canada Assistance Plan in the development and evolution of social assistance at the provincial level. It may not have been as determinative, but I think some of the elements of social assistance, which make our programs much more effective than those for example south of the border, have been implicit in the Canada Assistance Plan. Although recipients don't see it and the average member of the public doesn't see it, I think it's important and it should be considered such as you deliberate on its future.
Mrs. Hayes: I was fascinated by the conversation and I am honoured to be able to ask you these questions too.
The Chair: I don't think Mr. Walker said he was honoured. I think he said he was delighted as an academic to be able to engage in a discussion with him.
Mrs. Hayes: I'll say I'm honoured. How's that?
This is a question going back to what the Constitution Act says in section 36, as you gave in your presentation, about the legislative authority of Parliament. Then it goes on to the three elements: promoting equal opportunity for the well-being of Canadians, furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities, and providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
Part of our discussion today is the affordability of the present system in light of fiscal realities of the country. You claim that the federal government should have some control and that control would come only through the cash hammer, shall we say.
The first part of my question is, do you feel right now that the Canada Health Act is exactly the way Canadians want it? Do you feel it is indeed providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians in the best possible way?
Prof. Boadway: I think you could certainly quibble about the precise conditions in the Canada Health Act, especially the specific criteria, the prohibition of user fees and extra billing. You could quibble with them, both of which might be in some sense redundant because they are covered by the more general principles. I personally think the general principles are very important ones and are probably just about the right ones to use.
I think, in responding to the question, I view health as being an essential public service, yes, but I also view it as being something that satisfies equality of opportunity by removing uncertainty of ill health from people's lives and allowing them to get on with it without falling ill. I think it precisely fits into the requirements of subsection 36(1). One might also view the Canada health and social transfer as, in a more general sense, part of the commitment to equalization as outlined in subsection 36(1), which has been reproduced in our document.
.1615
The fact that the Canada health and social transfer, or at least that part that finances health and post-secondary education, goes in equal per capita amounts to all provinces is a form of equalization. It enables provinces that have very different capacities to provide comparable public services and therefore satisfy the requirements of subsection 36(1).
I guess my answer to the question is yes, the terms of the Canada Health Act are generally reasonable and health should be regarded as something that falls within the purview of subsection 36(1).
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Hayes.
May I say to you I think you've provided us with a very clear and forceful insight into the whole thesis that it's desirable, that the federal government be involved in our social programs. No cash, no clout. We can't unscramble the federal-provincial fiscal egg that transferred tax points so we're going to have to do it somehow with cash.
I also accept your statement - and I think all of us do - that just because the federal government has on a three-year horizon reduced our cash component does not mean the federal government has forever said there will be no cash component. It's like when we reduced the tax on cigarettes. We never insisted it would go to zero and we never said it would not go back up.
I think your admonition to us that it won't work without that cash clout is very realistic, and I know all members were very impressed by your clear presentation. I wish we'd had you as perhaps our first witnesses on this issue. With your permission we would like to make sure you come back before us as we continue to discuss these matters.
I thank you very much on behalf of all of us.
Prof. Banting: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd be happy to come back at your request.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our next witnesses are from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care Network, led by Jocelyne Tougas, David Hagerman and Jamie Kass.
Ms Jamie Kass (member, Board of Directors, Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care Network): I'm Jamie Kass.
The Chair: And you're leading the delegation?
Ms Kass: Yes.
The Chair: We look forward to your brief presentation so we can ask you some questions.
Ms Kass: Thank you for the opportunity.
I'm an executive member of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
Dave Hagerman is a coordinator at the Glebe Parents Day Care, which is a local child care agency in Ottawa. He is also a parent and a member of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
Jocelyne is with the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada and a member organization of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
What we want to do is just go through parts of our brief and then leave time for questions.
In 1981 the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care was organized as a coalition of provincial organizations. That included child care advocates, professional and community-based organizations, women's groups and labour and teachers' federations.
Today that has been added to by locally based child care coalitions across Ontario, which would include child care programs, support agencies and organizations supporting francophone and aboriginal peoples.
When we first started the coalition we certainly had worked a lot in terms of what brought us together, and that was put together in a brief called ``Day Care Deadline 1990''. In this brief we called for a universally accessible, comprehensive, high-quality, non-profit child care system.
.1620
In Ontario, I guess over the last while, we've been working very hard as advocates to focus our efforts on child care around the 1993 federal election. The federal government has an electoral mandate to move forward on child care, and that's part of the reason we're here today.
The federal agenda for child care has been spelled out in a number of areas. One was in Creating Opportunity, your Liberal red book, and I think there's quite a section in that we want to outline. Also in Improving Social Security in Canada and the review of the social security system and in the Child Care and Development there were special pieces on child care. The red book promised to add 150,000 new child care spaces over three years, spending a total of 720 million new dollars cost shared 40-40 with the provinces and territories. Parent fees would make up the 20% balance. The red book in fact presented this initiative as a first step.
Overall it was reassuring that the Government of Canada agreed with us that child care is a priority for reform of social security programs, and that comes right out of your paper. We have long argued that affordable, high-quality child care is part of a solution to social and economic challenges facing families and communities. We believe child care is an investment in the infrastructure of our communities and in our future. it should never be seen as a drain on our wealth or resources.
The coalition obviously now has grave concerns about the federal government's course. In meetings with MPs we have received the assurance of a number of your Ontario-based colleagues, including cabinet ministers, that this government remains committed to its red book child care commitments. However, the proposed legislation before you will prevent this government and any future federal government from proceeding on this commitment. The lack of a child care system is a major deficit in the Canadian infrastructure, adversely affecting our economic performance and in fact undermining our human resources.
In contrast with almost all other countries in Europe, a coherent system of child care does not exist in Canada. Child care remains unfinished business on Canada's social and economic agenda going as far back as the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. There have been numerous task forces since the Katie Cooke task force that I first appeared in, in 1981. There've been committees, reports and parliamentary committees. All have recommended changes to the policy and funding arrangements. Child care is often referred to as a patchwork of policy and funding mechanisms. Played out in the community this quilt is extremely frayed.
Provincial and territorial governments have jurisdictional authority for child care. The only federal role to date has been through a small amount of funding to aboriginal child care, a diminished research capacity, and through the Canada Assistance Plan.
More federal dollars are allocated on various tax measures related to child care expenditures than in direct funding to child care services. It was important to note that the child care community does not consider tax measures as child care any more than tax breaks to drug companies are considered health care. This money is a poor use of public dollars offering no accountability, no assurances of quality. Nor does it produce needed child care services.
If we look at some of the things happening since 1992, the provision of direct funding to child care services has decreased in six provinces and Yukon. In Ontario the system is more complicated. Municipalities play a major role directly operating and/or purchasing child care services and administering fee subsidies. Municipal discretion also leads to wide variations in the way child care is administered. Fee subsidy criteria vary widely. The mess is best captured in the following example.
.1625
Approximately 7,000 child care spaces in Ontario remain vacant, while over 25,000 eligible families are on waiting lists for subsidized care. In many ways the municipal role in Ontario child care provides a macrocosm of child care at the federal level.
Regulations governing child care varied widely from province to province. Some provinces have training requirements for child care staff and some have none at all.
Supply also varies. While nationally only one in ten children have access to regulated child care, in some provinces that's as high as one in seventeen. Child care in Canada exists on an ad hoc basis. This is why a national child care program has been on the national agenda for the past 25 years. Leaving child care up to the provinces has not worked. The flexibility or responsiveness to community need has not materialized. Taken as a whole, the so-called funding and regulatory systems work at cross purposes, failing to provide an adequate foundation for the development and maintenance of an accessible, affordable, quality child care system that could be used to support broad social and economic policy objectives.
Mr. Dave Hagerman (Coordinator, Glebe Parents Day Care, Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care Network): I will be speaking on the federal budget and the Canada health and social transfer program.
If block funding proceeds, social programs targeted to the most vulnerable will be under intense pressure as they compete for the same funding as other powerful institutions such as universities, professional organizations and hospitals. It is an arrangement in which the young, elderly, disabled and poor can only lose.
In addition, under the Canada Assistance Plan, provinces were required to spend provincial money to get federal money. Block funding, accompanied by massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, will erode Ottawa's ability to enforce even minimal standards.
The question must be asked, will the federal government just become the banker for the provinces.
Bill C-76 says:
- 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...that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer Program.
We can expect to see imposition and increases in user fees, privatization of social services and the elimination of already scarce programs if this program is put in place. In addition, we are already witnessing the trend of targeting social services to smaller and smaller groups of recipients defined as the most needy. Programs such as child care suffer when they are delivered to targeted services, and there will be increasing pressure to reduce quality.
We concur with the federal government that it is in need of reform. However, current plans to dismantle Canada's frayed social policy infrastructure by stealth would be a disaster for all social programs, but in particular child care. The Tories may have killed their promise for a national child care program, but this bill, if passed, will bury any future possibilities.
Just a short note on the role of the federal government, social policy and the development of a social policy and/or all policy.
The role of the federal government is to bring the various regions together to develop a consensus of common values and principles. It is then the role of the federal government to be the protector of those values. This act seems to be relinquishing this role. This is not to say that values cannot change, but the process of consensus building and in fact nation building must remain intact. The federal government must remain to be a partner in the process of building a national identity and to building a national consensus around certain basic values in terms of what types of social programs society wants to live in.
Our fear is that with the passing of the act this role will be diminished far more than people will realize at this point.
Thank you.
.1630
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Campbell): Mr. Dubé, please.
Mr. Dubé: Before attending the series of hearings of the Human Resources Development Committee, I had an opportunity to hear your association's representative. Before asking my question, I have to tell you that I endorse the needs determination that you have made with regard to child services.
It seems to me that when we are talking about progress this society has made that this is one of the things that we have to look at. I understand your concerns with regard to this aspect of social programs because since it is the newest of the new services, it seems that it is more difficult to obtain funds either from the federal government or from the provinces, regardless of the commitments contained in the Red Book.
My concern is not with priorizing needs, because I wholeheartedly I endorse this. From a constitutional standpoint, child care services are not as clearly defined as are other fields, because in 1867 child care services were not very developped.
I would like you to explain your position. Is your approach unique with respect to Canada as a whole or with respect to Quebec, where not only do we find an already highly developped child care system which can still be improved upon, but also the will to do something about it and to comply with national standards. Could you please elaborate.
Mrs. Jocelyne Tougas (Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada): The Canadian Association and the Coalition have always had a great deal of respect for Quebec, given Quebec's special situation, and for the First Nations when it comes to national standards.
I think that when a vision was being defined and a national program developped in our associations consideration was always given to Quebec's position, mainly the right to self-determination.
In general, when this issue arises, without intentionally excluding Quebec or the First Nations, it is assumed that we are speaking, first and foremost, for English-speaking Canada. That is a starting point. I feel comfortable in saying this.
But now, yes, it is true that child care services come under provincial jurisdiction. But as you have said, this is also a social program. This notion, as my colleague has said, this concept of a nation is also important for Canada and, within the concept of nation there is the definition of a new society.
Among the various types of new society plans in English Canada - and I am sure that in Quebec there are also plans for a new society, perhaps to be achieved by different means, but the new society would be similar - there is this equality of access to social programs from sea to sea.
I think that with Bill C-76, what concerns people primarily is that already, with respect to child care services, because there is no national program, we are left with an approach that is dying everywhere.
There is a fear that the same thing will happen with the other social programs on the one hand, and with regard to child care services, that we are getting farther and farther from the idea that some day perhaps a child in Cornerbrook will have the same access to equality child care services that a child in Toronto would have.
This is why people insist on the retention of national principles with respect to child care services.
.1635
Mr. Dubé: When you talk about ``access'', this does not necessarily mean access to a single standard child care service. To better understand the goals that you have discussed, you must keep in mind that there is a wide variety of child care services that could even include family home child care.
Ms Tougas: That is correct. We also have to consider other possibilities, all forms of child care services must be an integral part of a system in which there is control over the level of quality, whether this is done by regulation or by some other means.
In our minds, we are far from limited to the typical nine to five day care service. It is much more comprehensive. In fact a whole range of services is required in order to satisfy needs.
Mr. Dubé: I am going to let my colleagues ask questions and if there is time remaining, perhaps.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Campbell): Okay, Mr. Dubé.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I am interested in some of your statements and definitions, and I would like some clarification. I do appreciate the chance to get some feedback from you and I thank you for that.
I would like clarification on your definition of child care. I presume from you that it's a regulated child care environment. What exactly is a child care position? I notice you say there's 7,000 spaces in Ontario vacant out of the potential spaces in Ontario altogether. I presume that does not include non-regulated spaces. Maybe you can advise me on that and tell me how many unregulated spaces there might be, and maybe I'll comment on some of your answers to that.
Ms Kass: Certainly when we look at a child care system we talk it out, and I think Jocelyne referred to it. We see it as a very broad system of child care. We do see it as a regulated system. The majority of child care right now is being delivered in unlicensed, unregulated care of variable quality. When we talk about wanting a child care system, we are talking about a system of child care centres, day care centres, family home child care, perhaps even where the children remain in their homes. We are looking at child care resource centres, family resource centres, where parents and children can go together. We are looking at toy lending libraries.
We are looking at a whole range of services including training services and research possibilities. We see it as a system, not just a linear kind of thing, but a creative kind of thing for children.
Mrs. Hayes: I speak for my own community, but the child care of choice is an unregulated space and that is of choice by the people in my community. It's not that they are forced into it because of circumstance or whatever. They seem to prefer that type of arrangement. In fact I believe most of them, if possible, use either in home or a relative or that kind of thing, again by choice.
I see your child care program here. Actually there's one statement in your brief that I find - I'll be honest - quite offensive. It's on page 7:
- Why should Canadians support a federal government who plays no role in the most pressing
matters governing their daily lives?
Mr. Hagerman: While the numbers are quite clear, for example one in ten children have access to regulated child care and in some provinces one in seventeen, I don't know what the numbers are in your region because I really don't know what region you come from.
.1640
I think people in your community, in all likelihood, don't have a choice. Any parents who wanted to enrol their children in a regulated service they could afford probably would not have that choice available unless they lived in a very unusual community. I haven't experienced one yet. Generally the only choice they do have is the unregulated system.
Having said that, we recognize and anybody I think who looks at this rationally and lives in a family situation recognizes that aunts, uncles and grandparents will always take care of children. People feel very comfortable with it and sometimes may prefer it. That's fine; there's nothing wrong with that.
In this modern society where the extended family is not really a reality for a large proportion of families in Canada, we're saying there is a need for people to have the opportunity to use a regulated quality service. I find it difficult to understand why you believe there really is a choice.
Second, in looking at the role of the federal government, of course you don't want it to regulate every part of our lives, but I think the point of that statement was that we see a role for the federal government, very similar for child care as in the Canada Health Act in terms of sending out broad general principles and standards and in terms of how public money should be spent.
Our worry is that by simply transferring funds to the province - and we're not too clear whether any consensus can be made or not - it does appear that there seems to be very little accountability of how that money is being spent in terms of the federal government.
Is the federal government going to be banker for the provinces, or is it going to provide a role in developing a consensus about important social values? When we're talking child care we are talking about important social values: the role of families, the role of woman, the role of children. These are all important issues. We all recognize that the family is in a state of change and there's need for new support networks, new types of infrastructures to support these families. Child care is one of them. As is pointed out in the brief, virtually all the advanced industrialized communities in Europe have recognized this for years.
Mrs. Hayes: I would like to comment on what you were saying. To me the best way to support families is to give them the maximum choice and then they become accountable for their choice. Similarly, to create a child care program, the level of accountability should be as close to that choice as possible. In saying that maybe the provinces shouldn't be trusted with it, again they're closer in accountability to the people who would be responsible for the program than the federal government. Don't you think, whether it be the family, the community or the provincial government, the closer the accountability, the better. I'm from the west coast, about as far away as you can get, and to remove that accountability to Ottawa is perhaps a step in the wrong direction.
Mr. Hagerman: I'm not denying the principle or even the possibility that the closer the government gets to the people, the more accountable it is. I think you can make that argument, but if you do, why have a federal government at all?
We've developed a good federal structure in the sense of respecting the regions. But the role of the federal government is to bring people together, to develop a consensus and come to agreement around important values, have the federal government be the protector and administrator of those values until the community as a group, the country as a group of regions, decides they want those values changed, and then go through a process of changing them. There is a role for the federal government to protect the funding and really, when it comes down to dollars and cents, to protect the funding that supports those social values and principles we've developed as a nation and as a group of identifiable regions. That we all agree on.
Ms Tougas: I think there's a misunderstanding in saying the informal sector would be excluded from a national child care system or program. Yes, parents do want choices, but they want good caregivers before they want choices. The worst thing for a person working with children is to be isolated, not to be in contact with other caregivers, with other people in the community.
.1645
When we speak of a national child care system for the informal sector, they are linked to the system through the resource centres, through the toy libraries, through the outreach mechanism within the system to ensure that if a parent in one community wants a next door neighbour to care for the child, and that might be the best care for that child, that caregiver is not completely isolated when in need from her perspective, but also that the parents know she is connected to the rest of the child care community.
It's wrong to say that because we're calling for a national child care program, we're excluding 80% of child care out there. It's a way of interpreting it that's not the way we have been saying. I guess we need to explain it more.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): I have a soft spot for this issue, having been involved in the establishment of the parent co-op day care centre at the University of Toronto about 25 years ago. I wonder if that's where I remember Jamie from.
Ms Kass: I think I know that one and a number of parents who were involved too.
Mr. St. Denis: It's nice to see you again.
Mr. Peterson (Willowdale): What was he like then?
Mr. St. Denis: He was much better looking. I was younger.
Mr. Peterson: Were you part of the occupation?
Mr. St. Denis: Yes.
Mr. Peterson: You still are.
Ms Kass: There's a lot of parents still around who were active around that time of getting the community-based child care centres going.
Mr. St. Denis: Is that right?
To put my questions in context, I represent a rural riding in northern Ontario, my birth home. Quite frankly, during the whole election and since, not a single constituent has raised the issue of day care with me. I did go to the opening of one day care centre in one of my smaller towns.
I am wondering if the issue of rural versus urban precludes the notion of a national day care program as maybe you've described it. Not to agree entirely with Mrs. Hayes' comments, some mix of the formal and informal, some line in the middle might need to be found to accommodate urban, rural and the desire of some people to work as co-op parents.
I know our experience and, Jamie, you'll remember this. The system didn't support, at the time anyway, parents getting together to provide co-op day care. I am wondering if I am behind the times or whether there is something in the middle that would allow us, within the fiscal constraints we have, to move towards the goal you talk about.
Ms Kass: It's interesting, because the president of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is from rural Ontario. She in fact has worked on a very creative opportunity of child care in a rural setting that meets the needs of a rural community. They just had a conference on world child care in Ontario, which was incredibly attended by a lot of different people, talking about how you respond to rural Ontario's needs.
I think what we find is that in fact there is a great need out there and it's different. It's the same thing Jocelyne was talking about. You create some choices. You create a system that meets the needs of different working patterns, of farm women. That's the sensitivity that I think over the years our coalition and the national coalition has had to come to understand. When we talk, we don't talk about it in an urban way. We don't mean that we want you to create a child care group centre. There's a need for that, but there's a need for a full range of services. I think if you begin that discussion with women in the community, you'll find that their needs are there. They have a variety of different needs that can be picked up under a system.
.1650
Some people feel it's just their own individual responsibility and therefore don't see that they can be part of a regulated system. I think there's such a lack of choice out there that people have made very makeshift kinds of solutions to deal with child care problems. We've seen a large increase in the number of farm accidents. We haven't responded at all as a government or as a society to the issue of rural child care.
Jocelyne wanted to talk a little from a national perspective. She's worked with a lot of the national rural groups, the farm women's groups.
Mr. St. Denis: Is it possible that a large percentage of those needing day care - mostly women, we'll say - don't feel empowered to look to the broader community for help? They look for informal solutions as maybe the easiest and most available when they're not necessarily the best.
Ms Tougas: There was a coalition that was put together a year ago, a national rural child care coalition. Actually, they have to bring their children on the tractors. They don't even have the informal care because their next door neighbour is 10 miles away. They have to get up at four o'clock in the morning. It's such a major problem. The kids are with them on the tractors and they have the accidents.
The issue is very big, but nobody has really been listening to rural child care. Maybe women in the past were not working so much on tractors; they were more in the home, and now those businesses are partner businesses. The need now is much more. It was always there, but now it's much more crucial. The issue is still very much there, but it's just starting to come to the table.
Ms Kass: I think we should get you some information about the rural child care groups, the kind of work they're doing and what they're looking at. It might help you in terms of your constituency.
Mr. St. Denis: Sure.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): What are your comments on the growing trend of what I classify as responsible corporations that are establishing day care centres in close proximity to their place of work? In the municipality I come from, two companies did that rather successfully and established employee groups to administer them not for profit, etc. I'm curious as to why you feel tax breaks for parents, or for corporations for that matter, would not be a proper vehicle in the delivery of this service. I don't agree with you when you say the federal government should take the lead role in delivering this service. I think the service should be delivered by the best source, and to me that's the source closest to the service required. In this case I feel it would be municipalities or even corporations, as I mentioned before. Why do you have an aversion towards using tax breaks or tax incentives for corporations, or even for parents for that matter?
Ms Kass: First we should clarify. The actual delivery of services might be done by municipalities, such as in Ottawa. Municipalities in Ontario play a large role in the delivery. We've been involved in the set-up of a number of workplace child care services.
The problem is that it's not the answer. It's part of a child care system and we see workplace-based child care as just part of it, part of a broad system of delivery. We have found that when we set up workplace child care it runs into the same difficulty as every other child care program: the under-funding and difficulty with meeting regulations. They are not different. They might in fact get some rent rebates. They might have capital cost paid from the company, but in terms of really supporting -
We've had experiences in Ontario where, with no new subsidies available, there have been workplace child care programs set up into which parents can't afford to put their child so there are vacant spaces. There is this whole thing in the brief about how in Ontario there are 25,000 children on a waiting list but there are 7,000 vacant spaces across the province. It's because parents can't afford to pay the full cost.
.1655
I think that's where the government role is in terms of funding the service and providing that availability. It isn't done through tax breaks or tax credits. There has to be more accountability and there has to be some support to the actual funding of the services.
Workplace child care is one of many options. There have been very successful workplace child care centres, but in most of the cases we've seen they've run into the same problems many centres now operate under, and they're in fear of closing.
Mr. Discepola: In our communities the workplace was the main driving force in the establishment of those day care centres, but what happened in essence is that excess places were created. These were then offered to neighbouring communities.
They didn't serve just the needs of that one employer but the needs of the entire community, and they've worked very well.
Ms Kass: There is some innovative stuff happening around that. The CAW negotiated a child care fund. It has opened up a centre. It now has home child care. It realized, however, it could never serve all its membership that way. It is now looking at a second centre.
It will never meet the full needs until we have a public policy from the federal government.
Mr. Discepola: But I guess - this is my last comment, Mr. Chairman - when I look at your criteria you're saying ``high-quality, comprehensive''. It reminds me of health care, where is it our responsibility to pay for vasectomies, for example?
Ms Kass: Va-what?
Mr. Discepola: Vasectomies. It is a bad example, isn't itç
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Would you like to explain what that procedure is, for the record?
Ms Kass: Some of you might not have... [Inaudible - Editor]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Discepola: Surgical procedures, for example. I think it's our responsibility to provide a basic service, but when you go to quality and comprehensive, that's where I wonder whether we'll be able to afford such a project.
Ms Tougas: What's the basic service you were talking about?
I come from rural Quebec. It wouldn't give me anything if any of the businesses there started day care centres, because there are not enough big businesses to start one and not enough people to be in those centres.
What's basic? You have to look at it from the perspective of the children and their families. The families who want to go back into the workforce have to access one form of quality child care. What's basic? It's very difficult.
It can't be taken from the perspective of downtown Montreal or of the Bank of Montreal. They have 3,000 employees there at the siège social. I don't even have a Bank of Montreal in my small town. We have la Caisse populaire and the Banque nationale, and there are five employees in there.
Whether the main office in Montreal has a workplace day care centre, it doesn't give us anything.
Mr. Hagerman: Can I just say something?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Very quickly, because we're just out of time.
Mr. Hagerman: I'd just clarify that we're not advocating that the federal government and/or the provinces actually operate day care centres. Day care centres currently are operated almost entirely by either municipalities or community-based organizations, some by corporations.
We see that system continuing. We just want to have a more secure funding base so that system can expand to meet the needs.
Second, corporations that do develop day care centres do get tax breaks for the development of those day care centres. All the expenses related to the development of that centre are written off as business expenses and are tax exempt. They're deducted from their income.
Third, the problem we have with tax deductions being looked at as a child care program is that in fact it's not. It does not develop child care programs. It simply provides more income to families to spend on whatever they want to spend it on. Maybe child care, maybe not. It cannot be considered, and we do not consider it, as an important part of child care and/or a social program.
That's where we're coming from.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you very much. Our time is up. We appreciate the time you've taken to come and speak to us. It's often said that the children have no advocates, but you certainly are articulate advocates for them. Thank you for being with us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): We will be proceeding immediately with our next witness.
.1700
There may be a vote at 5:30 p.m., so we're going to move quite quickly to our next witnesses, who are from the Nova Scotia Provincial Health Council, Ian Johnson and Karen Parent.
Welcome to the committee. As soon as you get yourselves settled, please begin your presentation and we will move to questions afterwards.
Ms Karen Parent (Acting Executive Director, Nova Scotia Provincial Health Council): Thank you very much. On behalf of the Nova Scotia Provincial Health Council, we would like to extend our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to provide our particular input on the legislation, Bill C-76.
The provincial health council, if anybody is familiar - if you're from Truro, I'm sure you are - was established in 1990. It is a group of 12 volunteers who take their time to advise the government on health issues. The council is funded by the provincial government and reports to the government through the Minister of Health. We are one of four provincial or premiers' health councils in existence across the country and we're the first to be enacted by provincial legislation.
In general, the council is very concerned about Bill C-76 setting up this new funding arrangement which will soon be passed by Parliament with what we feel is not adequate opportunity for broad public input and debate. We believe the committee would be greatly assisted in its review of Bill C-76 by such input as it earlier participated in, in the pre-budget consultations. On behalf of the provincial health council, we feel that if there was such a move to have broad public consultation on this particular issue, we would be a regional body or a provincial body in Nova Scotia that would be more than willing to assist in that area.
In this submission we intend to present our specific and general concerns about the new Canada health and social transfer, CHST. In our more complete, comprehensive submission we provide our views on the importance of medicare and other national social programs, and that's also available to you.
Ian is going to speak now on the specific implications of the Canada health and social transfer.
Mr. Ian Johnson (Senior Policy Analyst, Nova Scotia Provincial Health Council): Thank you, Karen, and good afternoon, committee members. It's our pleasure to be here with you and we very much appreciate this chance to speak to you. I wish to outline for you, if I can, some of our specific and broader implications of the proposed new funding arrangement and try to clarify where we stand on those points.
.1705
In the first place we are quite concerned about the impact of the CHST, the new arrangement on provincial reform efforts that is under way in the social program area. We can speak best about health reform, but I know you are dealing with much broader issues than just health care itself.
We are concerned that the new arrangement in fact will impair genuine reform efforts. We say that in our case because the government in our province has been trying to walk a very fine line between its actions in terms of deficit reduction and its four-year plan in that area and its health system reform efforts. We are fearful that when the government is faced with the consequences and the implications of this new transfer, it may in fact move much more to the deficit reduction area, impairing genuine and progressive health system reform.
We are also concerned about the pitting of key services against each other. In bringing together health, social welfare and post-secondary education under one arrangement, we are quite concerned that the new arrangement will force provincial governments to make very difficult choices at a time when really all of those services are needed. Certainly, with reduced funding, we are quite concerned this will be even more the case. With most governments, certainly in our case, trying to achieve a deficit reduction goal within a year or so, the pressure will be on to see which services we really need. I think our people will suffer as a result.
From a provincial perspective, we suggest as well that there will be less security for provinces and territories with this new arrangement, despite the promise of federal-provincial discussions on a more permanent arrangement for allocating funds under this new program, this new arrangement. To the best of our knowledge, there are no guarantees or safeguards presently in the legislation for the federal government not to take what we consider to be further unilateral action in establishing this program. The reduction of federal cash contributions will further accentuate our fears.
We are also troubled by what we see as a reduced public accountability through the new arrangement. We are quite concerned that it has been difficult already under the EPF, the Established Programs Financing, in particular for the public to know exactly what has happened and where money goes in terms of health and post-secondary education. Now bringing it under one arrangement we are concerned it will be much more difficult for the public, and even provinces for that matter, to understand how much is being allocated for what services under the Canada health and social transfer.
We are also troubled by what we see as difficulties of enforcement. We recognize that the legislation does set out some provisions for maintaining the basic principles of the Canada Health Act and maintaining the principle of residency for the Canada Assistance Plan. Nonetheless, while the government has argued it will be easier to enforce the Canada Health Act, we've remained unconvinced of this point.
Finally, what we call another specific implication, we're concerned about the loss of funding for needed services. As you know, this transfer will provide an estimated $7 billion less to provinces and territories for health and post-secondary education. In our province that means a loss of some $328 million in those program areas, in a province where annual spending in health community services and post-secondary education on an annual basis is only $1.6 billion in total. It's going to have significant impacts in terms of the funding implications alone.
But beyond that, and we want to identify and be clear with you, there are broader implications of the Canada health and social transfer. For us, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this new arrangement and the legislation setting it forth is that through the government's approach to social programs there is the move to downgrade or even devalue social programs. We saw this particularly earlier, but it seems to be carried through. It was first expressed when we saw the documents as part of the social security review.
We saw what we felt were two new changing assumptions that seemed to be getting more and more emphasis: one being that the best form of social security comes from having a job. In other words, social programs are of limited value or may not even be necessary as long as most Canadians have jobs.
.1710
We only have to look to our neighbour to the south to know that an increasing number of Americans, even with jobs, do not have adequate health insurance. We're very concerned about any proposal to move in that direction.
The other key value seems to be that the government's focus should be on the support for the most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged. In other words, let's make sure that our scarce resources for social programs are focused on those who need them the most and let everybody else look after themselves. I'm not saying that is totally the attitude of the government, but the extension of what we see as underpinning it is moving in that direction.
I'd like at this point to turn it back to my colleague, Karen, to wrap up our opening presentation.
Ms Parent: The Nova Scotia Provincial Health Council would like to make the following recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance and the House of Commons regarding Bill C-76.
Number one, that the committee not proceed further with its consideration of the legislation until it has held cross-country public hearings on the Canada health and social transfer.
Number two, that the committee also seek the advice of relevant national advisory bodies similar to our own, such as the National Forum on Health and the National Council on Welfare.
Number three, that it explore all possible options for new funding arrangements besides the Canada health and social transfer.
Number four, that it have a health impact assessment conducted to determine the long- and short-term health impact of the Canada health and social transfer before it's implemented.
Number five, that with any new funding arrangement for social programs, federal cash contributions remain at a sufficient level for adequate enforcement of the basic principles underlying those programs.
Finally, that the monitoring and enforcement capabilities of the relevant departments and agencies with respect to social programs be strengthened and not diminished.
In conclusion, if the Canada health and social transfer, in its present form, is pushed ahead by the federal government, there will be serious problems for the health and well-being of Canadians.
The current reaction from the provincial government organizations is clearly one of great concern. The federal government needs to ensure that broad public consultation and an extensive opportunity for analysis and debate are given to Canadians before the legislation is passed. We ask that the committee give serious consideration to the concerns and recommendations that we have proposed.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you very much. We're going to proceed with questions.
[Translation]
I will now give the floor to Mr. Dubé.
Mr. Dubé: I recalled in broad terms what you have defended, but I would like to check whether I have fully understood your statement, because all I have is the English version.
You would not be opposed to a revision of the social programs, but not in a context where the goal is to cut back on expenses in order to reduce the deficit. I think that you agree that there will perhaps be things in the social programs that can be improved. Have I understood correctly what you have said?
[English]
Mr. Johnson: Yes, very definitely. Thank you very much for the question. I regret that we're not able to make translation available in the time we have. I apologize for our lack of consideration.
I think you're right, sir, very much in the line of questioning. We are not opposed to reform. In fact, as we tried to outline, our focus as a council has been to support and help move health reform forward in our province. There are many reasons why it needs to go ahead at the federal and provincial levels. At the same time we are very concerned.
At the provincial level in our view the underpinning for that has to be the basic principles of the Canada Health Act and a strong and vigorous federal presence in that. We believe the two go hand in hand and are very necessary. Certainly, we do support it and we not suggesting to just maintain the status. We have to move forward, for sure.
.1715
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Bill C-76, which is related to the Budget, contains proposals that will change the national objectives and criteria. What you are saying - and I fully agree with you - is that you feel, when all is said and done, that it is not very logical to proceed in this fashion as long as the Health Forum has not completed its work and as long as there have not been concrete consultations with the provincial governments. You even mentioned public hearings.
[English]
Ms Parent: Yes, most certainly that is the position we're taking. There's a requirement for broad public consultation, that the national forum on health should have an opportunity to complete its deliberations, and that there is potential for the pitting of different programs against one another to compete for diminishing dollars. Yes, you have captured our points quite adequately.
Mr. Johnson: We can speak, Mr. Chairman, from experience with public hearings. A lot of our work is through public consultation. I know as a committee you have also engaged in your pre-budget consultations. Certainly we haven't been perfect in our process, but we have learned a great deal from what we've done. In fact, you'll see in the back of our longer submission that we present for you the Nova Scotia provincial health goals. Those goals were not just from us or from our council members, but they were crafted through a very significant public input.
We're probably now facing the most significant change in funding arrangements for social programs since the establishment of the EPF in 1977. While we appreciate being here, we feel there is great need for broad public consultation, including provincial governments but not excluding many others in the health sector. Certainly, as my colleague mentioned, we would be very willing and able to try to assist you should you decide to do so in our province. We feel we have links and connections, and it wouldn't take too much to encourage other people to come out and speak to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Perhaps one problem with regard to social programs is the fact the public is exhibiting a certain degree of weariness. This weariness is also accompanied by an obsessive fear of the debt. As a result those people who have not a chance to fully weigh the consequences of the changes proposed in Bill C-76 simply do not see the consequences.
Right now we are in the month of May, and summer is approaching. It will probably be adopted before the end of June. What has to be done to make the public better informed? Just hearings or something else?
[English]
Ms Parent: Certainly, as Ian has pointed out, we feel that if you are able to develop a relationship with some provincial bodies in each of the provinces that have a well-established network already, they would be able to - and in our case I can speak to the province of Nova Scotia and the provincial health council - take that time and develop a consultation strategy that also involved providing educational opportunities for the general public. I think you're quite correct in saying that there is a certain amount of fatigue. There's been an awful lot about deficit. The summer is coming up. These are real, practical issues to consider.
However, I think with our credibility in the province we would be key in seeing this move forward. We've heard enough rumbling, even with that fatigue, to suggest this is a very major issue. If we were able to move with this momentum we would play a key role in getting that information for the standing committee and for the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: So, you are offering to cooperate.
[English]
Ms Parent: Most certainly.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Mrs. Hayes, do you have a question?
.1720
Mrs. Hayes: It's interesting to hear a perspective from one of the Atlantic provinces, and I do thank you for coming. I know the challenges you face there are somewhat the same and yet different from those of all Canadians, and certainly some of them are unique. It's good to hear from you.
An earlier witness today was referring to the pitting of services one against the other. In fact I believe, if I caught what he said properly, he was saying to maintain the health component of this block funding the social welfare part would be hit at twice the rate of other sectors. It magnifies the effect when you take some particular item as your priority.
Could something like that be defended, or could that work in your province? How would you suggest that we could make sure that doesn't happen? Do you have a funding scheme or some way of suggesting to us that one sector doesn't take a hit at the expense of another?
Mr. Johnson: To try to answer the question, I think there are a number of things that need to be considered. I think you may have heard others besides us proposing some of this. I think for a long time even with the Established Programs Financing there has been concern that there hasn't been designated funding, clearly set out amounts and requirements for particular program areas. One of our fears with this is that we're losing, with this now going even one step further and lumping together without necessarily clear designation, what exactly is to be covered as post-secondary education, what is to covered as health, and what is to be covered as what have been CAP, Canada assistance programs. One way to resolve that perhaps is to at least be clear about which programs are which, or which funding is for what services, and what is required.
I think that's important if for no other reason than accountability purposes. Certainly we've argued, and we've tried to present here as well the need for clear designation. That's one way of addressing it. That doesn't get around the problem totally, obviously, because if you have designated program areas and you have reduced funding, still under this arrangement it is very difficult for provinces with reduced funding to make difficult choices. Certainly that doesn't resolve it. I think that's part of the reform process that we see in terms of health reform.
We would say, and I think this is consistent with the national forum on health, that generally speaking in our province there is enough funding overall for health, but how those resources are used needs to be rethought. Most of the focus in our province - 80% - has been going into either acute care facilities or medical services. Not that these services aren't needed - I'm not suggesting that - but there seems to be a number of indicators that this money isn't being well used and needs to be redirected. That might include social programs like child care, as you just heard, for example, or it might include food banks. We just saw the school lunch program in Nova Scotia cut. We think that's an important program and meets a need.
There should be some way to redirect, but we haven't got that far in our reform process. We're just now starting to see some reallocation of resources from the acute care sector and, to a lesser extent, from the medical services side payments to other sectors such as home care, which in our current provincial budget has received a fairly significant increase. We have a long way to go to get further beyond that.
Mrs. Hayes: You mentioned you have been involved in public hearings and know the flavour of what's happening in your province, and that's tremendous. In those hearings have you heard from the public that the present system, say the health system, is open to abuse or overuse or whatever, and is there an issue there that might affect the funding levels we've mentioned?
.1725
Ms Parent: Communities are aware that we have to take a hard look at how we are utilizing our funding dollars. We need to revisit that.
Mr. Johnson: One area that has been picked up on a consistent basis is the use of emergency departments of hospitals. There are parts of the province where it's been more common with almost any particular health problem to go there rather than to a doctor or some other health provider. Certainly the cost of that is significant compared to using a provider.
I would suggest it's not so much abuse as maybe, partly, it's because there doesn't appear to be much choice in the after hours period when you don't have access to providers you may normally have. The only option is to go to the emergency department, which is a very costly option, at least for our province.
How do we set up services so there is an after hours service? I've been part of a community health centre where we had access - and we're hoping to do this in the province - to a telephone service to nurses on a 24-hour period. In that case it actually resulted in an almost 50% reduction of emergencies in the clinic because that service was available on an after hour basis.
The government in our province is trying to set up, along with home care, a comprehensive emergency health service which includes a telephone referral and a first responder service. There's some money allocated provincially, new money in this budget, to set the service up, but it's going to take time to get all the nuts and bolts, the pieces, together so that we have the infrastructure to move ahead with it. But there are some ways we can do that.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): As vice-chair of this committee and as acting chair at this moment, I have the distinct pleasure of inviting the chair of this committee to ask a question. Then I can cut him off if he goes over his time, as he's been known to do, to Mr. Discepola in particular.
Mr. Peterson has a question.
Mr. Peterson: This is the chair's chance for revenge.
First, the concept of the provincial health council seems to me to have been a very wise decision, to establish this group, and you people who are volunteers participating to improve the health system. If other provinces have not adopted that approach, I'm sure you would recommend it to them. I commend the government for having done it and you for serving.
Second, as chair of the committee I have been approached by Dianne Brushett, Roseanne Skoke, Geoff Regan and others who have asked that we accede to your request to prolong these hearings, that we hold Canada-wide travelling discussions and hear everybody.
When we looked at the people who wanted to appear before us as witnesses, we found that we had up to 12 affiliates of a national union who were simply going to repeat what the national group had told us. All three parties, in discussing this with our caucuses, came to the conclusion that we have 295 members of Parliament who are available through their offices to communicate, discuss and bring back to all three caucuses the views of individuals.
There is also the tremendous cost involved. We don't even serve coffee in our committee any more, let alone lightly undertake the say $200,000 cost of a very whirlwind, cross-Canada tour of a committee. These were very important considerations, and we felt that through our members of Parliament from all parties we could have that input from people who were not represented by umbrella groups such as yours and others who are so prominent.
You're assuming that money is going to run out from the federal government. We all know it's been reduced, but that's only over a two- to three-year time span definitely set in a budget with a specific amount. Just because it's being reduced over a period of time to meet budgetary constraints does not mean the cash component of our transfers is going to be obliterated. It is just like we did with the taxes on cigarettes; we lowered them. It didn't mean we got rid of them and it didn't mean we weren't going to increase them when conditions changed.
How much do you feel we have to commit to cash transfers and by what date in order to maintain the integrity of the Canada Health Act and the other programs?
.1730
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we can give you an exact figure. The concern you raised about the notion of money running out may be misguided or misunderstood.
What we're basing that on is the fact, as you know, that under the previous government there was a capping put on the Established Programs Financing, which has already resulted in a decreasing and declining level of cash contributions to provinces. If continued, the earlier estimate -
Mr. Peterson: You mean the cap on CAP?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir. The reduction in the rate of increase of the EPF was set out first in 1989 and then in 1990, even before this budget. It has moved us toward the point where cash contributions would run out. The projection was depending on the province early in the first decade of the first century. I'm trying to say there was a process already under way.
Our concern is that this transfer has accelerated that process. You're right in the sense that there's no certainty in terms of where it automatically has to run out at the end of the two-year period. But our fear is the momentum is such if that continues we will reach a point, if it doesn't run out, where the capability in terms of enforcement that the federal government now has through the Canada Health Act will be gone or very restricted. Even now I'd suggest we see indications that because of the shift and the declining sense of cash contributions some provinces seem more now than they might have earlier to be challenging the role of the federal government in that way.
Mr. Peterson: It's certainly my reading and, yes, future budgets could do increasing amounts of the cash transfer or reduce it. Certainly the feeling I'm getting is yes, the federal government has to meet its deficit target but Canadians do not want to see some cash leverage being totally wiped out, leverage sufficient to continue our major social programs and the federal impact on them. I'm certainly getting that feeling. If that's what you're expressing to us, then I think you'd have a lot of sympathy on this side of the table today.
Mr. Johnson: We appreciate that. What we're saying is there isn't any certainty, as it has been outlined in both the budget and in this legislation, that this will happen. But if that's what you're saying as a committee, and hopefully all sides will agree with you, that will be a very positive development from our point of view.
Ms Parent: I just wanted to clarify your points around public consultation. Are you saying that through the local members of Parliament that's how the public consultations will continue?
Mr. Peterson: Yes, and we are continuing to hold hearings here for another week and a half. We have had every major national group, but quite frankly we couldn't see the advantage in travelling to regions at very great cost where we were hearing again members of the same family talking to us on the same issue.
Ms Parent: Just to speak to that, that's where we thought we would be of greatest assistance. You wouldn't have to necessarily travel. We would be able to be a catalyst for collecting and collating that information for you. As far as having particular groups that are always overrepresented, that's been where the council has been most successful.
Mr. Peterson: I would urge you to put together your coalition, if you wish. I'm sure a number of our members of Parliament would be pleased to meet with you very quickly, because we'll be reporting on the bill fairly soon. That way members of Parliament are doing the job they are so well qualified to do and you're assisting them in bringing new views to them.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: I've been cut off.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Our esteemed chairman has learned a trick from his colleagues at the table. He didn't look over here at the Chair once while he spoke, so he wouldn't have seen my increasing hysteria about the passage of time. There are a number of other members who wish to ask questions.
Mr. Peterson: I'm sorry.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Mrs. Brushett.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate that you are here today, because I know you are playing a vital role in the province of Nova Scotia.
One of the points that comes up frequently is that the health system we have in Canada is actually the ribbon that binds this country together. It is vital that we do save and protect it and manage it as effectively and efficiently as we can. What we have seen, particularly from the witnesses before this committee, is that each province seems to have determined what they valued under health care. Over the last 20 years, for example, in Nova Scotia, we have covered dental care for children from birth to the age of 16. I believe just this last year we've reduced it from birth to the age of 12. That has been a wonderful thing to do, but the health care has become broader and broader; the umbrella has become bigger and bigger.
.1735
In Ontario they cover cosmetic surgery, again a wonderful thing, but maybe some of these things are selective and are above and beyond what is really basic good health care for this country, to keep it competitive and economically viable.
I'm wondering if in your counsel to the premier you have been able to make such recommendations? Are you in a position to, or would you be in that position before this committee?
Mr. Johnson: No, we haven't made specific recommendations. We have expressed some concern. There has been a move in our province, as you may be aware, to regionalization and decentralization. The notion of core services has come up as part of that. Our recommendation in that area is that there must be full and extensive public consultation, that the decision about what is covered on a provincial basis as opposed to a regional basis or a community basis has to be decided through extensive consultation, which we are prepared to assist with. We've offered that on several occasions.
I guess one answer to your question is those kinds of decisions should not be made by the selected few behind closed doors. We're a bit concerned that there has been a tendency to look at certain types of procedures and services as something that can be decided between providers and the government. We're suggesting they've a role in that but it has to be much broader than that.
There was earlier in Nova Scotia, as you might know, the Select Committee on Health, in 1984-85. It actually recommended services that should be covered that weren't currently covered. We know there are real problems with dental care, not only for children but for adults. Also prescription drug costs in our province was a theme of the royal commission in our province. Even in today's Chronicle Herald there was the gentleman who has AIDS and is stuck on social assistance because he can't afford to work and not have drug costs covered.
We have examples, and I've seen them myself, of working poor and low-income families who don't have any social support but face a significant cost. Those are the kinds of things. We're not suggesting that every needed service should be covered right away, but we think there needs to be a process under way in each province, at least in our province, to try to identify those things that are priorities that have to be covered across the province and maybe others where there can be variations. We need to get a process established.
Mrs. Brushett: I think that is vital because we work in a context today of what is almost a healthy community. That's part of the employment of person, the mental health, physical health and so on. In terms of the great costs of the equipment in our hospitals, like the MRIs and CAT scans and so on, do you think they'd be better utilized? I'm curious as to how much recommendation you may have made to the Minister of Health in terms of taking them into the malls or making them more accessible to the public - better utilization of that equipment rather than having it be idle more often than it is in use.
Ms Parent: Maybe the question is, has the equipment been utilized properly in the first place; has there been a need for so much use of that particular equipment? The provincial health council was initially involved, struck a committee as part of its legislative mandate to look at a technology assessment and was making recommendations to the minister, through to the premier, in that very area.
We didn't have the human or fiscal resources to continue that particular process, but there seems to be a common thread here that we're seeing shrinking dollars. Are we, however, prepared to look at utilization patterns? Are we prepared to look at how we can best use, allocate or utilize the equipment we have and perhaps not just consider that we can't really closely examine how we are currently using our health care system? That's what I hear, and possibly that is also the comment from Mrs. Hayes.
.1740
Should we not revisit how we're utilizing our health care, not just to look at delegated funds for social programs but also in parallel look at the utilization factor. Perhaps you're saying the same thing. We can designate funds or ask for a designation of particular funds to social programs but we also have to be practical. We also have to look at the fact that we have shrinking health care dollars and for other national social programs. Are we prepared to do a very thorough evaluation of the utilization of those? I would say the council has been pushing for that since it was set up.
Mrs. Brushett: I think that's good to hear, because particularly in child poverty we've been throwing money at it but we're not solving the problem. Is money not really the answer there?
Ms Parent: No, supports are required and the enforcement on certain areas is required, but you're right, I do think we need to couple that with an evaluation.
Mr. Johnson: We also need more information. In Nova Scotia we're now trying to finally set up, and it's maybe hard to believe, a provincial health information strategy so that we know better where we're spending and how we're using services, even information I know you're familiar with in terms of surgical rates and procedures across the country. A lot of basic information we don't have, which is hard to believe when we're trying to make decisions involving millions or in some cases billions of dollars. We need to know a lot more about what is being done and with what effect. That's one reason why we need to move forward, but we really need a lot more information than we have at present to help make those decisions, to make the best use of the dollars we have.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Mr. Discepola, we always do this to Mr. Discepola. In fact there is another question down the road. You'll have to be really quick.
Mr. Discepola: Why did you accept the question from the Chair, then?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Because of seniority.
Mr. Peterson: I just want you people to know how awful it is to have to listen to this.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I deferred to him on the basis of seniority.
Mr. Discepola: I want to know if the witnesses are aware at least from a Quebec perspective under the existing system - because I believe Quebec opted in 1961 to go for the tax points as opposed to the cash transfers - that if we don't modify the system we're going to lose what I consider is the best advantage of this block transferring, the leverage we would have to impose whatever standards we wish on the provinces. Your group and other groups have already expressed I guess the concern of governments taking this money and doing other things with it. We already have cases today where provinces are spending less on education, for example, and the federal government is paying a disproportionate amount to different provinces for the delivery of the same type of service.
I'm trying to understand, because there has been concern expressed by different groups, and even in your recommendation you don't seem to be in favour of the block transferring, a lump sum for the various reasons you've stated. I'm wondering how you can possibly ask the federal government to all of a sudden state that we are going to give you x billions of dollars but x percent of that must be spent in welfare programs and y percent must be spent elsewhere. You want us to go to that detail and I have a hard time with that. It takes away the flexibility the provinces have been after. It ties their hands as to how they can best deliver or utilize that.
I don't know how we are going to achieve as a government national standards. Despite my colleague from Quebec saying that the provincial governments are open to cooperation, we as a committee couldn't even get the provinces to agree on harmonizing the GST, let alone arriving at national standards for social programs, national standards for education and national standards for other things. Caught between the two, what are you saying? I don't get a clear-cut view of what you're recommending. You're sort of saying you're not happy with the status quo. You're not happy with block transfers and you want us to spend more time reviewing it again to possibly come up with something else.
Mr. Johnson: I think you were partly right, but I think we're trying to suggest there may well be other options to consider in terms of funding arrangements. That's why we're recommending, in a sense, holding off on proceeding further with the bill until you and Canadians as a whole have had a chance to look at all the options in terms of funding arrangements.
.1745
I had experience as part of an organization that presented to the Breau committee in 1981, which was a major review of funding arrangements and which I think came up with one of the best reports we've had yet in this country in terms of federal-provincial funding arrangements. It was through a consultative process, a travelling process, but a broad process that involved a lot of organizations in a fairly short period of time, within one year.
We certainly recognize the need for flexibility but not to the point where we pit programs against each other or we lose the power of enforcement. There are other options. We heard, for example, a very interesting presentation, which maybe you've heard, from Dr. Allan Maslove of Carleton who proposed a conditional revenue sharing arrangement which would allow for more of a presence in terms of the federal government. I may misunderstand it, but it's an interesting idea anyway in terms of an alternative use of tax points that would allow for the generation of revenue at the federal level to be distributed at the provincial level. It may cover some of the same objectives without some of the problems we see in the present arrangement.
We don't have the final answer. All we're suggesting is that this process is under way very quickly and may have very serious consequences for the arrangements you've set up, provincial governments and their funding situations and, we fear, the health of Canadians.
Mr. Discepola: But won't the creation of national standards solve that problem? It gives the provinces the flexibility as long as they respect them and the Canada Health Act, the perfect example of that, has worked well.
Mr. Johnson: Except the principles have been very vague in many ways. Except for accessibility we really question whether the other standard criteria have been properly enforced. We also are concerned the reporting of that has been very weak, in our view. There is an annual report, but you never get a sense of the concerns of Canadians, of other groups, about the administration and the actual operation of the act. Yes, the Canada Health Act certainly helped. I don't want to mislead you there. But we have a lot of weaknesses in terms of how it's operated.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you. We'll conclude with Mr. Pillitteri.
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): We've had quite a few presentations on both block funding and Bill C-76. It's almost as though it's a fear of every presenter; it's almost like a disease. Pardon me for putting it so boldly. I can see this provincial bashing I feel is going on and giving no credibility to the provinces being able to deliver.
I remember living in Nova Scotia in 1963. Two of my children were born in Nova Scotia, in 1961 and 1963. That didn't cost me a cent. This was prior to the health care. I moved to Ontario in 1964 and I had to pay for my first child, and that was my last child.
Mr. Peterson: That's a new form of birth control through federal-provincial transfers.
Mr. Pillitteri: Had I stayed in Nova Scotia, our family probably would have grown more.
Why is there this fear, when Nova Scotia especially was one of the leaders prior to the health care act which provided for the citizens? Do you honestly believe that tomorrow each provincial government would not be brought to task by the electorate of the province for not complying with the Canada Health Act. Do you honestly believe they could get away from the electorate and not put to the task, each party, what they stood for?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, there certainly is accountability. Maybe our fear is unjustified but I think there is some basis for it. Prior to the Canada Health Act we saw a situation where there was a lot of fiscal and financial pressure, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For example, we saw at the same time an increased reliance on and a move by provincial governments, including our own, to extra billing and the possibility of hospital user fees.
.1750
In Nova Scotia - you may not be aware of this - prior to the Canada Health Act, except for Alberta, we had the highest rate of extra billing by physicians in the country.
I'm not saying governments aren't sensitive to public pressure, but if there isn't a basis and a legislated set of standards, and a process that's undergone to clarify what those standards are and how they're to be implemented, it's going to be much harder for public accountability to really have an impact. That's why the Canada Health Act has been so crucial; it put a lid and a stop on that process that was under way.
I can speak from experience because I was involved in looking at what was happening in our province at that time. We're fearful, I guess, that we may be moving rapidly in that same direction again.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): The fact that we've - I was going to say gone overboard - gone overtime is indicative of how interesting your presentation has been for members of our committee. We very much appreciate your taking the time to share your views with us.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you very much for the opportunity; we appreciate the chance to be with you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): Thank you, and I'm sorry to keep you so long.
We have our next witness with us, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Elaine Price. Thank you for being with us, Ms Price. You may introduce yourself and proceed with your presentation.
Ms Elaine Price (President, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour): The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour is an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress, representing 50,000 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our membership is composed of both public and private sector workers from provincial, national and international unions.
On behalf of the Federation of Labour, I would thank the standing committee for providing us with this opportunity to appear and present our points of view concerning Bill C-76.
I would like to start by going back to last February, when the House of Commons established a standing committee on human resources to consult with the Canadian people and make recommendations for modernizing and restructuring Canada's social security system. The standing committee held meetings across the country. During the presentations that were made by the individuals who were fortunate enough to have been granted permission to appear, there were three main themes or three main concerns that arose.
These were the increasing pressure on Canadian families and the unacceptably high number of Canadian children living in poverty; the challenge facing Canadian youth and the need for more effective support, particularly in making the transition from school to work; and the needs of the unemployed and underemployed adults, especially those coping with major shifts in the economy. The standing committee's report centred around these three themes. A review of the document indicates how the majority of Canadians feel about our social security programs and the role these programs play in maintaining our national identity.
You will see, from some of the quotes that I have pulled out of that report, that Canadians expressed with passion their profound regard and sense of ownership towards Canada's social programs and made it clear to the committee that change had to occur in ways that reflected Canadian values.
.1755
Our social security system constitutes an undeniable source of pride among Canadians. It is perceived as one of the underlying reasons for the civil and compassionate society we have in Canada and represents a defining quality of our nationhood.
The standing committee went on to say Canada's network of social benefits, rights, and responsibilities, our social security system, is integral to our country's fabric and vital to our nation's future. Modernizing and restructuring the social security system deals not just with dollars and cents. It includes encouraging job creation and improving access to employment; taking into account changing needs in the family, community, economy, and workplace; and strengthening the fabric of Canada. Renewing social programs means doing a better job of investing in people through tackling child care, expanding access to higher education and life-long learning, and implementing independent living principles and programs for persons with disabilities.
Yet, on February 27 Paul Martin tabled a budget that made sweeping cuts across the entire range of direct federal government spending, hitting virtually all federal departments, greatly reducing the federal role in economic and regional development, and eliminating some 45,000 federal public sector jobs.
On March 20 Bill C-76 was introduced in the House. If implemented, Bill C-76 will change the federal government's role in funding social programs and enforcing national standards by replacing the Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan mechanisms by the Canada health and social transfer, a block funding scheme that will begin in 1996-97.
The previous government's attempt to implement similar changes to decentralize federalism was overwhelmingly rejected by the Canadian people in the Charlottetown accord referendum. Now government is going ahead and implementing this new funding structure as part of the budgetary process, basically ignoring the wishes and expectations of Canadians and effectively excluding many of them from participating in the debate.
That government is proceeding to make social policy changes through the budgetary process despite the Charlottetown referendum and the social security review. The standing committee report is an indication of what we see as being the little value government places on public input and involvement in public policy making, and in our opinion raises serious questions about its commitment to the democratic principles under which this country is supposed to be governed.
Bill C-76 restructures the manner in which government delivers public services by putting into effect provisions to massively downsize federal government operations.
1. The elimination and privatization of federal public services will see 45,000 federal employees lose their jobs.
2. The workforce adjustment directive, which was negotiated in 1991 and forms an integral part of the collective agreement, is eliminated.
3. The wage freeze imposed in 1991 is continued and collective bargaining is restricted to cost-neutral benefits.
The principles underlying labour legislation in Canada, as stated in the Canada Labour Code, include the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining, the recognition of freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the basis for effective industrial relations to determine good working conditions and sound labour relations, and an acknowledgement that good industrial relations are in the best interests of our society by ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all.
.1800
These words were chosen by the Parliament of Canada to state the purpose of its own legislation and reflect the international obligations that Canada has accepted. These principles should apply to all workers, regardless of where they work or who employs them. Yet government, as an employer, is continuing to use its powers as a legislator to interfere with the collective bargaining rights of its employees and violate the security of a collective agreement that was negotiated in good faith by both parties.
This is an imposition on the right of the government's own employees to negotiate salaries and benefits, as well as a blatant violation of the ILO convention guaranteeing workers the right to free collective bargaining, and I believe Canada is a signatory to that particular convention.
Bill C-76 is also sending a dangerous message to other employers across this country. It is saying that, in government's view, a collective agreement is expendable. From our point of view, a collective agreement is sacred. It is not expendable, and when the government acts as an employer it has the same responsibility to respect the agreement as do unions and business in other circumstances.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour strongly condemns government for this action and recommends that this committee urge government to negotiate cost-saving alternatives with the respective unions instead of relying solely on its power in the legislature to force change.
Not only is Bill C-76 an attack on workers, it is an attack on the services that these workers provide to Canadian people. These measures will have severe implications for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to the loss of 1,200 federal public jobs, which will remove $38.4 million in disposable income - and that's calculated at a base rate of $32,000 a year, which is a bit modest - from an already stressed economy, we will experience an elimination or reduction in many public services that are crucial to the safety, security, and well-being of the people.
Our communities are struggling to come to terms with the economic and social upheaval caused by the groundfish crises. It is completely unacceptable that government programs and services are being downsized and eliminated at a time when access to government programs and a high level of service are needed more than ever before.
The implementation of Bill C-76 will also bring about drastic changes to grain delivery, grain handling and grain transportation in western Canada. Farmers and transportation workers in western Canada will bear the brunt of these changes. However, the implications will be felt across the country. The Atlantic Freight Assistance Act and the maritime freight rates are also removed with Bill C-76. Our geographic location dictates that many of the basic necessities we need to survive must be transported into the island. The elimination of the transportation subsidies will increase the cost of all goods coming into the province, and nothing will be exempt. Basically, as a result of this move, we will be paying more for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and even the grain our farmers feed to poultry.
The area of major concern to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour is the Canada health and social transfer. The Canada health and social transfer is scheduled to begin in 1996-97, replacing the Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan. CHST will reduce the money currently transferred to the provincial government for health care, post-secondary education, and social services over the next three years by some $7 billion. In doing so, it will effectively mean the end of national programs and standards in these crucial areas.
.1805
The Canada health and social transfer fundamentally alters the federal role in the field of social policy. This block funding represents to us the kind of decentralized federalism that Canadians firmly rejected in the Charlottetown accord. Now it is being implemented as part of a budgetary process that will exclude many Canadians from participating in this important debate.
Under the current system, the Established Programs Financing mechanism established in 1977 transfers money to the provinces in support of health care and post-secondary education. While the amounts transferred to the provinces are not related to specific expenditures in health care and post-secondary education, the government has the flexibility to spend the money as it chooses.
However, the federal government can withhold EPF if a province violates one of the five national principles outlined in the Canada Health Act. These provisions ensure that all Canadians have access to health care on the basis of need, rather than on their ability to pay.
Bill C-76 does reinforce these five existing medicare principles and gives the federal government the authority to withhold cash that would otherwise have been transferred under the CHST if provinces violate these medicare principles. We would like to point out that we feel this enforcement power is extremely important, and it must never be given up.
However, we feel that the Canada health and social transfer threatens our national system of public health care because it appears as though the funding formula ensures that federal cash transfers will be eliminated over the next 10 to 15 years, leaving the federal contribution in the form of tax points. As the cash transfers decline, the federal government will lose the leverage it needs to enforce the national standards in the Canada Health Act that keep the health care system public and not for profit.
In addition, there are no criteria that the provinces must meet with respect to post-secondary education. There is great danger that cash-starved provinces like the one I'm from will cut spending in other areas to preserve the medicare principles. We're already seeing examples of this in Newfoundland and Labrador. The recent provincial budget reduced funding for post-secondary institutions to below the 1994-95 levels.
Even though there are more than 100,000 adults in Newfoundland and Labrador who do not have high school education, community colleges have announced drastic reductions to their basic education program. It is anticipated that adult basic education will be eliminated from the community college system next year.
Training and apprenticeship programs at the community college level are also being reduced by 30% and rural campuses are operating under the threat of closure. These changes are occurring in an environment where the unemployment rate for March was 20%, even as thousands of displaced fishers are trying to gain admission to community college programs in order to upgrade their education and skill levels.
The Canada health and social transfer also has the potential to return post-secondary education to the domain of the elite. In provinces such as Newfoundland, institutions will be forced to raise their tuition fees, pricing post-secondary education out of the reach of children from low-income families, particularly those who happen to live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
The reduction in federal funding will also facilitate the movement of training and upgrading programs from well-equipped, modern public institutions with highly qualified professional staff to fly-by-night private operators who are out to make a quick buck without any real commitment to their students or the provision of a high-quality training program. There are numerous horror stories associated with this practice in Newfoundland. The ongoing investigation into the training school operated by the MP for St. John's West is a prime example of this.
.1810
Mr. Peterson: Do you have any facts that you want to put before us?
Ms Price: I'm not going to get into an investigation that is ongoing, but it is public knowledge that there is an investigation ongoing in Newfoundland over a training school that went bankrupt and was operated by that person.
Mr. Discepola: Was she an MP?
Ms Price: She wasn't when she did it but she is now.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I think you should proceed with your presentation, and please stay to your presentation.
Ms Price: I do too. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson: I am not very impressed with this type of innuendo and slander. I find it detracts greatly, Mr. Chairman, from the arguments, regardless of the political affiliation of that person.
Ms Price: I will proceed with the presentation, but we're giving an example of what is common knowledge in Newfoundland and what is happening in Newfoundland, and should the committee choose to come to Newfoundland, I'm sure that example will be quoted time and time again.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Campbell): I would suggest you proceed with your presentation, please.
Ms Price: For these reasons, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour has grave concerns about the future of public post-secondary education in Newfoundland under the Canada health and social transfer.
The area of social services is another cause for great concern. Right now, CAP enables the federal government to help provinces provide social assistance and social services such as child care, services to persons with disabilities, and training programs for disadvantaged people. In order to receive CAP funding, provinces must meet the terms and conditions established by the federal government and must receive prior approval for expenditure of these funds.
In order to be eligible for CAP funding for welfare services, these services must be provided by a provincial or municipal government agency or by a non-government, non-profit agency that is receiving public funding. In addition, the services must also meet the CAP's definition of welfare services and must be given to needy individuals as well as to those who would likely become needy if they do not receive help. We feel that these criteria and the conditions that are established for social services are crucial.
Under the Canada health and social transfer, funding for social assistance will be transferred in block. Provinces will no longer have to spend provincial money to receive federal funds. The only condition that must be met in relationship to social services is that the period of residency cannot determine eligibility for social assistance. All the other conditions that were associated with CAP have been eliminated.
In 1995-96 Newfoundland is entitled to receive a cash transfer of $395.699 million under existing arrangements for social programs. Projections show that in 1996-97 this amount will be reduced by $72.583 million. In 1997-98 the amount will again be further reduced by $53.589 million. Between now and 1997-98 the federal cash transfers to Newfoundland for social programs will decrease by $126 million.
Because of the economic, social, and cultural crises facing Newfoundland, the consequences of this reduction in federal transfer payments for social programs will be severe. According to the National Council of Welfare 1993 Poverty Profile released this spring, 100,000 Newfoundlanders are living in poverty. Almost 21% of our population under the age of 18, or 32,000 children, are living below the poverty line. Social assistance is the safety net of last resort. Beyond it lies destitution and homelessness.
Due to the fisheries crisis, continued unemployment, and the recent changes to the unemployment insurance and workers' compensation programs, the number of families needing social assistance in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to rise.
.1815
Federal restraint under the existing transfer arrangements has created a shortfall of $15 million in social assistance funding for this year. The province proposes to make up this shortfall by eliminating what it has termed as non-essential allowances, which will cover things such as transportation for medical services, assistance for prescription drugs and payment for overdue heating bills.
We have to ask ourselves what level of social assistance will be available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador next year when federal funding is reduced by $72 million. What will happen to our poor, our youth, our unemployed, our single parents and our disabled?
The Canada health and social transfer eliminates the national standard of providing assistance on the basis of need alone. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour is extremely concerned this will pave the way for massive redistribution of income, which will see money transferred from the poor to the destitute under a far-fetched scheme like the income supplementation program proposed by the Wells' government last year.
The lack of national standards for social assistance will also be conducive to the development of needs-tested programs targeted to the poorest of the poor, with workfare for other needy people. This will force people into jobs with low pay and no benefits, putting increased downward pressure on already low salaries. Instead of creating jobs, workfare will displace even more workers from their existing jobs, hastening the growth of a low-wage economy in our province.
The human cost of Bill C-76 will be terrible for Newfoundlanders. The consequences are human suffering and increased poverty and the net effect will be needless hardship, pain and worry for the majority of our population.
During the last election this government campaigned on the commitment that they would work towards greater equality of social conditions among Canadians. The best social protection against unemployment and poverty is a job. However, instead of job creation, we are getting massive unemployment. People who are already marginalized by governments' economic and social policies are being made to suffer even more. It seems as though equity, equality and a better distribution of income and wealth have been put aside.
What is even more disturbing is that we feel there were alternatives, and we feel the Canadian Labour Congress, in conjunction with Choices and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, presented an alternative budget that could have helped government take a different approach. In its report the standing committee said that in addressing our fiscal problems we must not replace national fiscal debt with national social debt. The effort to reduce debt and restructure the workings of government and its programs cannot be conducted on the backs of individuals least equipped to bear the social cost of change. Indeed, one of the prime dividends of reducing debt and deficits will be increased ability to assist individuals to participate fully in the new global economy. The exercise of this principle precludes the use of slash and burn policies and economic shock therapies, the social cost of which will become quickly and painfully evident.
I think it's time government paid some attention to what Canadians are saying and what is reported in the standing committee's report on human resource development. This report, Security, Opportunity and Fairness, as I said earlier, reflects the pride, the passion and the sense of ownership Canadians across this country feel towards our social programs. It also reflects the desire and the expectation of Canadians to be involved in the process of social reform.
We feel that Bill C-76 will fundamentally restructure Canada and will see government move away from providing Canadians with social and economic security. From a Newfoundland perspective, it will have a profound impact on the lives of our people.
.1820
In addition to struggling to come to terms with the groundfish moratorium, which has caused the largest single lay-off to occur in Canadian history, people will also be forced to contend with the elimination and reduction of vital services.
Basically, what it means is that more Newfoundlanders will be condemned to live in poverty and destitution. Their children will go to school hungry, and we are getting demands from all across the province to start school lunch programs, which are done voluntarily, not through government funding. Their young people will not have access to post-secondary education. Their friends and relatives in rural communities will not have access to medical treatment. If they live a long way from a medical facility the costs can sometimes prevent people from being able to avail themselves of the service. Families will be denied child care. More people will be thrown out of work and the elderly will be left to fend for themselves. The imposition of such a sentence is cruel and callous.
We feel that government should reconsider the implementation of Bill C-76. We feel that these unilateral federal actions are completely unacceptable and that it is undemocratic and improper to pass such complex and wide-ranging legislation so quickly.
We would ask that the government attend to what the majority of Canadians said during the social security review. We would urge the government through this committee to engage in a broad consultation process with the people of Canada before this legislation is implemented.
The Chair: Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and I am attending the meeting today of Standing Committee on Finance.
I see that in your brief you closely followed the work of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, especially while it was holding its hearings. Having been in Newfoundland and having heard groups and individuals, I can tell you that this compares quite well with what we heard.
There is one point on which I disagree with you, and that is the conclusion that you have drawn on the Charlottetown Agreement. You forget to mention that Quebec also voted against the Charlottetown Agreement, but for the opposite reasons. The majority of the people of Quebec felt that the system was not decentralized enough, whereas you stated that it was overdecentralized. Notwithstanding this fact, I agree with your conclusions concerning the time frame.
I would like to ask you one question. You are one of the poorer provinces in Canada. You also talked about measures concerning the end of transportation subsidies. While I followed things closely, I have questions about your opposition to the fact that in the future, funds will be allocated on the basis of needs, and that these needs could be greater and more severe in Newfoundland than in other parts of the country, rather than the way things are done now. You say that in Newfoundland there are more poor people and that the children are poor.
I am not saying that I agree with that action, even if in the future federal funds and programs were allocated on the basis of needs, an increase in funds for Newfoundland could logically be expected. I am trying to understand your opposition.
[English]
Ms Price: What we are saying is the provincial government under the existing funding arrangement is having difficulty meeting the needs of people in Newfoundland and Labrador right now. In terms of the poverty rate - I was looking at national stats in preparing this - the poverty rates in Quebec are actually higher than they are in Newfoundland. Newfoundland is not the only poor province.
.1825
Our concern is with the change in the funding structure. If government can't meet the needs right now, then what is going to happen to the people in our province next year and the year after that? We're getting into equalization payments now. There has to be an equitable way of distributing income in Canada and all Canadians should have their needs looked after.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: You talk about standards. You want to see standards and you want to see a certain level of service maintained based on the federal assistance provided. We could spend a lot of time discussing this point and I think that we would probably have different perceptions. I would perhaps have a different opinion because of the fact that I come from Quebec.
The other very important point that you emphasized was that you are against cuts in federal assistance to the provinces because this would mean a reduction in services. I think that this is a point which you should definitely emphasize.
[English]
Ms Price: That may be so, but under the existing funding arrangement in order to qualify for CAP the province must meet certain criteria concerning the provision of social assistance. Under the Canada health and social transfer arrangement, the only condition that has to be met is that residency not determine eligibility. In addition to meeting the needs, we're also concerned with the elimination of those standards because it's going to mean the removal of national standards for social programs. We think it is crucial that they be maintained.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I would like to point out the fact that you have shown courage by coming here and making this presentation by yourself on behalf of your group from Newfoundland. I think that this is something which needs to be recognized here. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: As chair of this committee, I have very great difficulty with this presentation. We do not want to become, as a committee, a place where people can come and use parliamentary privilege to dispense slanderous and libellous comments against anyone, be they members of Parliament or individual Canadians. It detracts too greatly from the great issues we face here, the very important issues of our economic future.
I submit that what has been presented to us on the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11 verges on this. I have very great problems with it.
The meeting is adjourned.