March 25, 1994 For Immediate Release
REFORM PARTY CRITICAL OF SOCIAL REFORM PROCESS
The Reform Party was highly critical of the process which led to the tabling, in the House of Commons, of the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville and the Reform Party's representative on the Steering Committee said, "If Canadians don't have any more say in the second phase than they did in the first one, then I think many voters are going to be disappointed with the final results."
The Interim Report tabled today was required by a motion introduced in the House by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Human Resources Development on January 31, 1994. The Standing Committee was directed "to consult broadly, to analyze and to make recommendations regarding the modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security system."
Despite representations to the Committee and the Minister about how to open up the consultative process to all Canadians, Reformers were not able get the Liberal dominated Committee to open up the process. Grant Hill, MP for MacLeod commented, "Right from the start it appeared that the whole process was rigged to get opinions which favoured the liberal point of view. Luckily we were able to get some witnesses added to the list and their submissions and briefings were most welcome. But the end result was far from what I would call balanced. Unfortunately, due to the tight deadlines many organizations did not have the time to prepare submissions and present them to the Committee. It is for these reasons that I don't think the Committee's Interim Report is representative of the views of the majority of Canadians."
Dale Johnston, MP for Wetaskwin expressed his disappointment, "The motion passed in the House of Commons directed the Committee to consult broadly, to analyze, and to make recommendations. And, Parliament directed us to produce an Interim Report by March 25, 1994 on Canadians' concerns and priorities. This report in no way represents Canadian's concerns and priorities. It mainly represents the views of special interest groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so the government funding for their organizations remains in place. Granted there were some common sense proposals put forward by some real grassroots organizations which are funded from their own pockets but their comments are buried so deep in this report that they will be very difficult to find."
Monte Solberg, MP for Medicine Hat reported, "We wanted a bottom-up process and the government shot it down. We wanted average Canadians to be able to put their ideas forward and what we got was a process dominated by the left-leaning elites from central Canada. This process failed us when it was used in the Charlottetown Accord and it will fail us now if we continue down this road.
Breitkreuz was still hopeful something could be salvaged in the second phase of the process but only if the process is truly opened up to average Canadians. Breitkreuz said, "When Reform proposed that the Committee agree on a set of fundamental principles as a first step, before writing the report, we were told it was out-of-order. How else are Canadian's going to judge the final proposal brought forward by the Minister if it is not based on a set of basic principles which we can all agree on. We have attached a set of questions based on these principles, which all Canadians can use to judge the government's final proposal on the reform of social programs. Give the government's proposals the "Taxpayers' Test."
Breitkreuz concluded, "Reformers can only do so much on their own. We need to hear from the people. If the people are happy with the direction the government is taking then we will back off. On the other hand, if the people think Reformers are on the right track and want the process opened up and based on principles we can all understand then please call, write or fax. We can only be your voice in Ottawa if we hear from you."
For more information please call:
Ottawa: Dennis Young, Parliamentary Assistant - (613) 992-4394
TAXPAYERS' TEST FOR THE REFORM OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
1.Are the government's proposals for the reform of our social programs financially sustainable?
2.Do the government's proposals provide incentives to help people become less dependent on government?
3.Do the government's proposals provide incentives to the public service when program objectives are achieved? (i.e. lower unemployment)
4.Do the government's proposals eliminate all duplication of administration between the federal, provincial and municipal governments?
5.Do the government's proposals eliminate abuse of the system?
6.Are the government's proposals targeted to those people who are most in need?
7.Are the government's proposals based on "household income" and administered through the income tax system?
8.Are the government's proposals fair and do they treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live?
9.Do the employers and employees who pay for Unemployment Insurance, have a real say in how the money is spent?
10.Do the majority of Canadians support the government's proposals?
IF YOU ANSWER "YES" TO THESE QUESTIONS THEN THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THANKS FOR TAKING OUR TAXPAYERS' TEST ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS.