The Honourable Francis LeBlanc
Chairperson
Standing Committee
Human Resources Development
Room 218, West Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. LeBlanc:

Canadians share a deep concern about social programs not only because they affect the vast majority of Canadians, but because they care about what kind of society they want to have. Surely in a society where fame and fortune may be a person's only sure guarantee of security as well as that of his or her offspring, the only security the vast majority of people can seek is from society. In this instance, the state is the sole representative of society and the social programs guaranteed by that state determine how far it provides a secure future for all.

One of the key differences and the point of departure from medievalism to modernism is that in the earlier times society only recognized the claim on it by the feudal aristocrats and their servants.  Today, at least in words, society has to recognize the claims of all.  How far a society is humane is determined by the extent to which it recognizes the claims of all over it.

If the above is taken into consideration, it is my strong opinion that social programs should guarantee life for all, from the moment they are born to the time they die, according to the standard of living that society is able to provide.This standard of living cannot be determined by a "poverty line" which is below what it takes to keep body and soul together.It has to ensure that the levels of development society has attained, including the levels of education and culture, are accessible to all members of society irrespective of their circumstances as individuals.Furthermore, if a society does not provide education, health care, jobs and social welfare for all, what means of subsistence can its members provide for themselves?

The history of the system in Canada has proven that, in the absence of recognizing the claims of all on society, a tendency remains in which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, along with a general climate of insecurity -- a problem which is not only chronic but becomes acute from time to time, as is the case at present. Unemployment has remained a fellow traveller of this system and has gotten steadily worse from the time of the Second World War.

As it is quite well-known, a society can be considered both humane and democratic if it follows the universality principle in recognizing the claims of all on society. A society cannot just recognize the claims of the rich to be rich and damn others to a perpetual state of poverty while the vast majority live in a permanent state of insecurity.

In my opinion, any review of social programs should keep in mind three fundamental principles:

1. In relation to social programs, it is not the universality principle which should be modified or abandoned. On the contrary, measures should be taken to ensure that the system guarantees the well-being and happiness of all and not riches for the few and poverty for the many.  In this regard, great care should be taken not to impose changes to social programs or levels of programs such as to UI eligibility requirements in an arbitrary way, as is presently done when a budget is presented to Parliament or decisions are made which fundamentally affect the lives of Canadians. Canadians are constantly put into a position of having to adjust their entire lives to cope with such changes. Whether an unemployed person receives 60% or 57% of prior wages makes a vast difference when this is his or her only source of income. The same applies to all those who depend on social welfare or other social programs.

2. Social programs necessarily deal with these areas which concern basic human rights to health, education, welfare, social insurance, affordable housing, pensions, and so on. Therefore they must be put at the centre of concern of a human society. Any attempt to consider these expenditures as merely an expense, rather than a basic social investment, should be abandoned. This is all the more true when the claims of the moneylenders on society are not questioned, but the claims of Canadians on society are.

3. Canadians have the fundamental democratic right to fully participate in making the decisions which affect their lives. Therefore, no decisions should be made as concerns social programs before submitting them first for the approval of those whose lives they will affect. The consultation process which is undertaken must, therefore, not be used, as has been the case in the past, as a means to legitimize a pre-determined agenda.

Finally, at this time, there are interests which conflict with one another because of the foundation of society and the way it is run. Individual interests run counter to collective interests and individual and collective interests conflict with the general interests of society. A broad program of social programs based on the principle of universality can go a long way towards harmonizing the individual interests with those of the collective and the individual and collective interests with the general interests of society.

Society has come a long way from the days of medievalism. Nonetheless, the existence of disparities between rich and poor and the pressure that society must only respond to the claims of the rich, are pushing it to go backwards instead of making a clean break with medievalism and creating an entirely new society, in which the well-being of one will be dependent on the well-being of all. A system of comprehensive social programs will contribute in a decisive way to creating a really democratic and humane society, in which all interests will be harmonized in favour of opening the path for progress.

Since these views are merely presented in brief, I am at your disposal to expand on them and present specific proposals.

Sincerely,

Hardial Bains
National Leader
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)