March 25, 1994 For Immediate Release
REFORMERS SAY STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT BIASED
The Reform Party MPs who sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development say the Interim Report tabled today in the House of Commons is seriously flawed and does not fulfil the mandate of the Committee as passed in Parliament on February 8, 1994.
The Committee was directed to consult broadly, to analyze and make recommendations regarding the modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security system and produce an Interim Report by March 25th on "Canadian's concerns and priorities". When asked if the Interim Report addresses the priorities and concerns of Canadians, Dr. Grant Hill, MP for MacLeod said, "It certainly does not. The report only addresses the concerns and priorities of the special interest groups and individuals who appeared before the Committee and not necessarily the view of the majority of Canadians. It is for this reason that we believe the report is biased. We hope that the Committee has learned a lesson in this first phase and will consult far more broadly during phase two."
Dr. Hill continued, "The report also fails to describe the fiscal dilemma facing the government if we fail to make major cuts to social program spending. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Human Resources Development told the Committee that he was not concerned about the cost of the modernization and restructuring. Reformers maintain that in order to preserve our social programs we need to start targeting social spending to those people who are most in need."
Monte Solberg, MP for Medicine Hat reported, "The Committee's report is seriously flawed. Throughout the report misleading references are made to levels of support for particular concepts through the use of words like, "overwhelming majority, minority, a small number, most, several, a few, some, still others". It is important to point out that these references are very subjective and only apply to the group of witnesses who address that particular concern, not the whole list of witnesses who appeared before the Committee. For example, it is possible that a reference to "overwhelming majority" may mean that out of twenty witnesses who addressed a particular issue, thirteen agreed on a particular proposal and therefore does not necessarily represent the "overwhelming majority" of all witnesses who appeared before the Committee."
Solberg was also disappointed that the report did not make any references to the work of previous Royal Commissions which have spent millions and millions consulting with Canadians on these subjects. He specifally referred to The MacDonald Royal Commission on the Economy, the Forget Commission on Unemployment Insurance and the Newfoundland Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment.
Dale Johnston, MP for Wetaskwin was unimpressed with the "Guiding Principles" added to the report by the Liberal MPs on the Standing Committee. Reformers had proposed a set of principles to the Committee on March 14th and we were ruled out-of-order. The Liberals do not include principles specifically regarding eliminating abuse, reducing dependency, eliminating duplication of administration, targeting social spending to those most in need or treating all Canadians equally." A list of Reform Party principles for social program reform have been attached.
Dr. Hill concluded, "The Liberal's never campaigned on making major changes to the country's social programs. In fact, they attacked the Reform Party for suggesting that changes were necessary because of the looming fiscal crisis. The Government is using the Committee process to legitimize reforms to social programs they knew were necessary during the election but were afraid to talk about."
On October 11, 1993 Maclean's magazine stated: "No government can afford to keep the safety net at its current level." Reformers believe that it is deceitful for the Liberals to ignore such an important issue during the election when a real mandate for change was possible. "Now the Liberal dominated Standing Committee is continuing the cover-up by not being completely honest with Canadians in this report," said Dr. Hill.
For more information please call:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS REFORM
1.Our social programs must be financially sustainable on the long term.
2.Our social programs should have incentives to help people become less dependent on government.
3.Our social programs should provide incentives to the public service when major program objectives are achieved. (i.e. lower unemployment)
4.Our social programs should be designed to eliminate all duplication of administration between federal, provincial and municipal governments.
5.Our social programs should be targeted to those most in need.
6.Our social programs should be based on family or household income and administered through the income tax system.
7.Our social programs should be designed to eliminate or at least minimize abuse of the system.
8.Our social programs should be fair to all regions of the country and treat all Canadians the same, regardless of where they live.
9.The majority of Canadians should be in favour of the final proposals on reform of our social programs.
10.Unemployment Insurance should be "democratized", meaning it should be administered by the employers and employees who finance it.