Debates of May 2nd, 1995

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Previously, the Liberal Party and the NDP assumed that role, but the former now is the government and the later has all but disappeared. We are the only ones left in Canada, not only in Quebec but in Canada, to speak in this House for the poor, those who are the victims of this minister, the victims of this government. No ministerial or prime-ministerial speech in this House will make us forget that these people are persecuted by the federal government.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Second, we are being told that we are wasting the time of the House by discussing Bill C-76. What an undemocratic attitude. Have we reached the point-because we are sovereignists, elected as such by the people of Quebec, democratically, 53 of us out of 75 seats in Quebec when the governing party only got 20-where we can no longer express the reasons for our being here?

Have we reached the point, now that the government is imposing new national standards in the context of an unusual legislative framework, where we no longer have the right to say that this does not make any sense, where we can no longer speak on behalf of the provinces or the poor, where we can no longer say that, yes, we are here to promote Quebec sovereignty, because we believe this is the only possible solution to extricate ourselves from the current mess, the kind of deception we are witnessing today?

I can tell you that there is not one member here who is not proud to assume this historical role, and we are confident that in the fall the people of Quebec will prove wrong those who have not yet understood the Quebec reality.

I have a question to ask the minister. He knows Quebec and, as a rule, he is quite democratic. I do not think his speech today was really democratic, but as a rule he is. He knows very well that in Quebec there is a consensus on the issue of manpower training.

We talk about a lot of things, administrative arrangements in every possible area, but there is one thing that everybody agrees on in Quebec and it is that manpower training programs and the resources devoted to them should be in the hands of the Government of Quebec.

This would do away with a lot of arguing, would prevent the neutralization of efforts and the wasting of energies. We could have better designed programs, specifically geared to Quebec needs. Everybody in Quebec thinks like this, including the leading federalists, including people like Ghislain Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat. There is general agreement on this in Quebec.

Being a democrat and seeking the best for Quebec, as he said, what is he waiting for to convince a reluctant Prime Minister-I know he is most reluctant-to convince his government to transfer all manpower training activities to Quebec with the necessary resources?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just accused me of being undemocratic, of accusing him of wasting the time of the House of Commons. Let us be perfectly clear: of course, the Bloc Quebecois has not only the right but also the obligation to enter the debate on the government budget.

They certainly have the right to present their views but when, instead of discussing the budget, they create a phoney issue and make up their own budget that has nothing to do with the one we presented, I certainly agree that they are wasting the time not only of this House but also of the Canadian people.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is starting to change his tune somewhat. Today's opposition motion reads in part as follows: "-by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs-" That is patently untrue. The motion goes on to say: "-through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance". That is patently untrue, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my budget speech and in the budget itself and as I reiterated again today, there is no intention of imposing anything on the provinces or to interfere in provincial matters.

To make things even clearer, this morning, I submitted to this House the amendments we intend to refer to the committee that will consider the budget.

Let us set the record straight. The Bloc Quebecois's motion is a sidestepping tactic and has nothing to do with the truth. When I say that you are wasting the time of the House, it is not because you do not have the right to discuss the budget but because you are making up your own budget to better attack it. I think that we have just received a compliment. You have just shown that it is impossible to attack our budget by making up your own budget so you could attack it.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of transfers to the provinces. Let me tell you that when I met with provincial finance ministers, they told me, "Give us notice. Do not take us by surprise like the previous government". So we gave them two years to adjust.

Third, they told us, "If you are going to hit us, make sure that you will be hit harder". That is what we did. We made deeper cuts at the federal level than at the provincial level.

Fourth, these cuts represent less than 3 per cent of provincial revenue and less than 20.5 per cent of Quebec revenue. It must be said that, at a time when all governments must put their fiscal houses in order, we simply fulfilled our obligations.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will talk to the head office, because he obviously exerts a great deal of influence there, and that the next time he talks to them he will suggest that they bring down a budget designed to put their fiscal house in order to create in Quebec a climate that would help the federal government create jobs.

Since the Leader of the Opposition has so much influence on the head office, perhaps he will talk to them about their own cuts, because he is blaming us for the cuts they are making in money areas.

I think that they should not say two different things. But perhaps it is possible for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to say one thing and for the leader of the Parti Quebecois to say another thing. We face real economic and social problems. We know that. We know about the poverty problem and we see how painful it is. We know what is happening and we want to work together.

In closing, I ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Bloc Quebecois, instead of creating phoney issues and provoking empty debates, to help us tackle the real problems of Quebec and Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching the debate today are probably not sure whether the concern here is political point making or whether it is the welfare of the people of Canada. I hope as legislators in the Chamber we keep in mind the welfare of the people we represent and the people we serve.

There are strong feelings on issues that are perhaps unrelated to the absolute welfare of Canadians. Perhaps there are agendas that would seek to use some of the issues as springboards. However it is very important today to focus on what can best be done to assist the people and to keep in mind there are needs and concerns shared right across the country.

We need to be honest and point out that governments can only do so much, whether it is a federal government or a provincial government. To my knowledge there has not been a government in history that has been able to eradicate poverty or has been able to relieve all citizens from hardship, from difficulty in their lives, from the insecurities of life with which we are concerned.

Somehow there is a feeling or a belief that governments can look after all of us and prevent us from facing hardships and difficulties. It is not fair to Canadians to suggest that if we talk enough, if we accuse each other enough, if we promise enough or if we fight enough, everyone will be looked after.

We can direct our minds to working together not only as legislators but as fellow citizens, to assisting each other, and to doing all we can to help those who cannot help themselves. That should be the real focus of the debate today.

There is a transition in the country with respect to security for Canadians. For quite a few years many security programs have been premised on two assumptions that have proved to be false. The first assumption is that mother government will, can and should look after its citizens, support them and protect them from all the difficulties and contingencies of life. The second assumption is that government can and should do so by borrowing money.

We have spoken so often about the dangerous assumptions and the wrong headedness of the assumptions that it is surprising we do not start from the premise right away. Clearly we do not. The reason reductions are being made in the funding of programs not just by the federal government but by all levels of government is that more and more of our income, more and more of our economic product, is being eaten up in compound interest accrued on the borrowing we have done to put the programs in place. Arguing about who did what to whom and whether cuts should be made here or there really obscures the central question of how we are to manage the situation we are in while making a firm and proper commitment to help the people who are truly needy.

My friends in the Bloc have a very legitimate point of concern which they have raised today about how the situation is being addressed. It is a situation that will not change. We are spending more and more of our income on interest payments. We are at the point where we cannot continue to fund programs on borrowed money. That inevitably leads to spending reductions. The question is not whether there should be spending reductions but how they should best be managed. If the debate today is intended to legitimately and honestly address the situation, it is very proper and very needed.

Quite frankly no plan has been advanced or proposed by the government or by the ministers responsible to give us a road map, a sense of direction on where we are going in light of the realities of the economy and the reality that government cannot deliver on the promises that it made in the past to be all things to all people and to preserve and protect us in every difficulty.

I listened carefully for the visions, proposals and recommendations of previous speakers to Canadians who want security for themselves in the future. I did not hear any such proposal. I heard blame being assigned. I heard denials. I heard ridicule of concerns. However I did not hear any leader in the House say so far what he intends to do to address the serious concerns of the people.

In many places of the world the concerns of people in difficulty and distress who need relief and assistance have often been used as vehicles to promote political agendas. I hope very much that will not happen in our country. Promising people something that no level of government can really deliver is a dishonest approach to a problem that we do not want to duplicate in Canada. It also does not address what we should be and could be doing to better serve the people of our country.

The finance minister is correct when he says that the legislation put before the House to implement his budget does not impose any new national standards on the provinces. I have examined the legislation very carefully and there are no proposals for new standards. I do not believe the provinces are being required to do any more than they have in the past as far as delivery of services are concerned.

There are however two concerns which my friends in the Bloc have raised that we should acknowledge and address as much as we can. One concern is that there is no co-operative plan or process to facilitate the development of a co-operative plan to ensure the proper, effective and efficient delivery of services that Canadians need.

The government has said that it would reduce its spending and talk about what we will do together later. That is not a good service to the people. A far better thing to have done would have been to immediately work to facilitate a discussion and a co-operative approach to how services will be delivered instead of making unilateral decisions and then saying we can talk about it later. All provinces justifiably have concerns about that type of process. It could have been managed a great deal better.

The role of the federal government in the delivery of the programs has to be addressed honestly. The federal government is continuing to apply its own criteria to how the programs are delivered and to make judgments, pronouncements and give direction on how things will be structured as far as the delivery of programs is concerned. My friends in the Bloc are correct when they point out that it is an intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

People look for income support when they cannot provide themselves with the necessities of life. Some of these people have suffered from a catastrophic illness or they are young people who are looking for the training and education needed to build a strong future for themselves. I do not think these people really care very much about how and at what level of government these services are delivered. They simply know they need the assistance and programs that will best enable them to look after the contingencies in life.

Canadians watching the debate today have probably felt quite frustrated at the suggestions that you should do this or we should do that; that you did not do this right or they did not do it right. Quite frankly, Canadians just want to know who is going to do it right.

The principles outlined by the Reform Party suggest how we can best deliver programs and structure the spending of public money to give Canadians health and security. The programs are most efficiently and effectively delivered by the level of government closest to the people being served. I believe the people who framed our Canadian Constitution saw it that way as well. Clearly, they put these matters into provincial jurisdiction.

If my friends in the Bloc are suggesting that it should fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces to deal with matters of post-secondary education, delivery of health care services and the support of citizens who are destitute and unable to provide for themselves, then Reform completely agrees with them. These services are best delivered by the provincial government and institutions and organizations in the provinces.

It would be the federal government's role to provide equalization of the financial ability of each province to provide good delivery of those services. It would also work co-operatively to facilitate a strong, coherent approach to the delivery of those services right across the country.

This is a very mobile society. People can now move easily from one end of the country to the other and to different provinces many times in their lives. We want to make sure there are proper services, proper education, proper health care, that we are caring for people to the best of our ability no matter where they live in Canada. The federal government does have a role which is to ensure the proper co-ordination and proper delivery of services across the country.

This confrontational approach, the big stick of additional funding and threats to withdraw funding if the federal government's will is not carried out will simply not be workable in the future. We must acknowledge that. We must move to a far more co-operative approach where we simply work together as legislators at the federal, provincial and lower levels of government to simply do our job, which is to serve the people we represent and with whose money and futures we have been entrusted. We need to work together to do that well.

It both concerns and disappoints me when we quarrel and fight rather than work together for the benefit of the people we are responsible to help and to serve by making good decisions. I appeal to my colleagues in this debate to look at the practicalities of how best we can achieve the good of all Canadians rather than simply using people's legitimate needs and concerns to advance agendas which really have nothing to do with giving them the help and the kind of government they need and deserve.

We could work co-operatively and we could respect the decisions that have been made as to how best to help people. We could respect our jurisdictions and the proper roles each level of government has. If we could do that, all Canadians would be much better served.

As members know, the Reform Party has put forward a number of proposals to better meet the health care, education and social welfare needs of Canadians. We have done this in light of the realities we face today, in light of the fact that some of the past assumptions simply have not proven to be correct or workable. Today is not the time when I will talk specifically about those.

It should be the will of all of us serving as federal or provincial legislators, or as municipal officials, at whatever level we are trying to meet the needs and protect the interests of the citizens we serve to work co-operatively. We must work to find ways where each of us can make the best contribution for the good of our citizens, where we can bring our country together, where we can work together and build a strong future. With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately following the word "denounce" the following: "for the sake of national unity".

When we work together in a unified way, we will best serve the legitimate and very real needs of all the people of this country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North is in order.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a speech but, given what I have heard here this morning, particularly from the Minister of Finance, I will start by replying to the Minister of Finance. I was flabbergasted to hear the Minister of Finance say what I heard him say this morning, when he talked about employment, compassion for the poor, people on welfare, the 808,000 Quebecers who are currently on the welfare rolls. He said, his hand to his heart, that he had done all he could to help these people and that it was our turn.

He is the one responsible in the first place for the hardship experienced by these people in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. It is his doing. He is the one who, out of compassion for the unemployed, cut $7 billion from the UI fund. He is the one who pushed some of the unemployed and more to come, with their families, onto welfare because of tighter requirements brought about by his cuts.

Now he has the gall to tell us to call upon our head office, in Quebec, to establish real policies to fight poverty when he himself, as the Minister of Finance, his government, and his Prime Minister in particular, are seriously interfering not only with economic recovery but also with improving the lot of the most unfortunate families in Quebec and Canada.

That is dreadful. I will tell the Minister of Finance right away that he better stop taking his instructions from the Power Corporation head office or that of the Bronfmans and the rest and start working for and serving the people who elected him instead of his friends, the large corporations, who benefit from a tax system of an unprecedented generosity because there are so many loopholes in it that it looks like Swiss cheese. The Bronfmans, the Desmarais and the rest take advantage of such loopholes.

I have a hard time containing myself sometimes when I see how few measures he takes and consider his personal situation, but I will not dwell on that because we, Bloc members, are too polite to engage in this kind of thing. But I find it despicable that such a man can say that he is compassionate, given that he is the one responsible for the hardship of these people.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

He said that instead of creating economic uncertainty by talking about sovereignty, we should join them. First of all, he is the one creating uncertainty by not proposing budget measures. Moody's realized that in February. Moody's understood that when it downgraded Canada's rating. We truly regret that, but the agency recognized that the Minister of Finance had demonstrated his incompetence over the past year. The minister took no appropriate action for a medium-term control of Canada's deficit and debt. He is the one creating uncertainty. He is the one who is confusing the economic situation and leading the country on the road to ruin.

So, we urge him to stop talking about uncertainty, to look in his own backyard and to ask himself what he has done in the past year as finance minister to regain control of public finances, what he has done other than to offload his deficit problems onto the provinces and plan an eventual transfer of the federal government's rating cut. These are the real questions he should have asked this morning.

Coming back to Bill C-76, the legislation maintains the national standards in the health sector, and introduces new national standards in the areas of social assistance and post-secondary education. If the provinces do not respect these standards, the federal will cut their funding as it did to the unemployed and welfare recipients, and as it is about to do to our seniors. These measures would limit the provinces' autonomy in their own jurisdiction and would apply to a sector as vital as education for Quebec's cultural identity.

The Minister of Finance proved us right this morning when he came up haphazardly, in an almost unprecedented fashion in this House, with a series of amendments which he intends to eventually table. We do not know when for the minister was so flustered that he did not tell us. But he proved us right. He told us that we were right to fear federal interference in areas which come under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, such as education and social assistance.

The Minister of Finance intends to eventually table amendments. We will wait for these amendments. So far, nothing is official, but the minister felt cornered. He knew that the official opposition was right, and is always right, because we are dealing with a bill. So, the minister hurriedly came up with these things in an off-hand, almost arcane manner.

Try to imagine-we are referring to Bill C-76-what it means to have Canada's English speaking majority impose education standards on Quebec. Do you have any idea of the implications? Try to imagine what it means to Quebecers, given our particular historical background.

Canada-wide standards in education would mean that Ontario, Newfoundland and Canada's English speaking majority would define, to some extent, Quebec's education system, a system which perpetuates our identity and our culture from generation to generation.

Can you imagine for a moment Clyde Wells, in Newfoundland, and his elected friends in Ottawa, his associates and accomplices, defining the content of Quebec's education system through the direct use of Canada-wide standards? Does this mean that, for post-secondary education, we would only have 25 per cent control over decisions, while being constantly blackmailed by the federal government regarding the level of transfers?

Through this bill, the finance minister and his government are pursuing two aims: first, to crush the legitimate claims of the Quebec government in its own jurisdiction, a fight that has been going on for at least 30 years; and second, to hide from people of Quebec and Canada the real situation with regard to the cuts in the transfer payments to provinces and the impact of these cuts for next year in particular but especially two years from now.

The government is seeking to hide the real situation about the budget transfers as a whole by talking about cash transfers, not tax point transfers. The Minister of Finance is confusing the population when he says that transfers will not decrease over the next few years, because he is talking about tax points and cash transfers whereas only cash transfers should be considered. That is what the federal government has under its control. That is what the federal government can use to blackmail provinces, not tax points. Even the government agrees that tax points are there to stay. They are provincial entitlements. So he mixes everything up, tax points and cash transfers, resulting in a distorted picture of reality.

Here is the reality. The financial transfers as a whole, meaning the federal cash transfers paid to the Quebec government, will decrease by 32 per cent-and this is not peanuts-from 1994-95 to 1997-98 because of the cuts in transfer payments to provinces. It is important to understand that these transfer payments are not a gift from the federal government but are taken from the $30 billion paid by Quebec taxpayers to the federal government.

I have to point out that these taxes have increased to such an extent since 1982 that it is incredible that the finance minister, who has been in charge for 16 months now, has not thought about considering the situation with regard to taxation. Since 1982, taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers to the federal government have increased by 143 per cent, whereas federal transfer payments to Quebec, cut year after year, and even more since he became finance minister, have increased by only 50 per cent.

On the one hand, taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers have increased by 143 per cent, to $30 billion at present, and on the other hand, transfer payments have increased by approximately 50 per cent over a 10 year period. That is the situation. It is tangible evidence that this system is not working. When taxes are raised so steadily while the rate of growth of transfers is being reduced, surely there is a problem somewhere, there are inefficiencies of some kind and some chronic malfunction in the system.

In the coming year alone, cuts announced in the last budget of the Minister of Finance will result in losses in revenues of $1 billion for Quebec. The direct impact of transfer cuts amounts to $650 million and the indirect impact, to $450 million. In 1997, the shortfall resulting from the federal budget will stand at $2.4 billion.

When we see such things, when we realize the federal government wants to quell legitimate aspirations of the Quebec government and that, at the same time, it is trying to hurt the Quebec fiscal situation and make it even more difficult for the Quebec government to prepare its next budget, we see the Minister of Finance for what he really is. His lack of responsibility becomes obvious. We see his centralist views, that are encouraged by his Prime Minister who took part in all struggles against Quebec during his whole political life. We now see the truth.

Through the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and the Bloc Quebecois, we want to restore some order so that the government will not get away as easily as it would have liked to with the shameful measures it took and the almost unprecedented attacks it launched, without warning, against Quebec and its jurisdiction.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I understand the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot correctly, he is going to share his time with one of his colleagues. The remarks of the hon. member will be followed by a five minute period for questions and comments.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out a small mistake my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot made when he said that the finance minister had his hand pressed to his heart when he talked about his deep compassion for the destitute. To me, it looked more like it was hovering over his pocketbook, or more precisely over the financial interests of the friends of the government in order to protect their pocketbooks. That is how it looked to me.

Also, during the speech made by one of the members opposite, I heard a statement which is frankly beginning to try my patience. We keep hearing that Canada is the best country in the world. I am sorry, but enough is enough.

This reminds me of a family which was earning a lot of money fifteen or twenty years ago. Without thinking, they bought a beautiful house, a second home, a nice car for the husband, a nice car for his wife, but in these hard times, they find themselves crippled with debts. Everyone keeps saying that the

owners live in the most beautiful house in town, that they are the richest people in the area, when in fact, behind this facade, the owners have to scimp on child care and sacrifice their children's education in order to pay their debts. So, this best country in the world is just a facade behind which we can hardly afford child care.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I was deeply shocked by the remarks of the Minister of Finance.

There may be words which are not parliamentary, but there are also ideas which can be best expressed by saying that the Minister has considerably distanced himself from the truth.

This budget, like the measures taken by this government, has a centralizing effect. Even though the Minister, before trying to discredit us, has made the effort to propose, in a way which is absolutely not parliamentary, amendments to a bill which he has tabled himself and which was interpreted by the reporters and by everybody who has analyzed it exactly as it was by us, he is not fooling anybody. Because we can say that the cuts to UI proposed last year by this government, by this Minister of Finance, have begun to hit people hard, particularly the young people who are not entitled any more to UI benefits because they have not worked for a sufficient length of time and the women who go back to work and who are not entitled to UI benefits either. All these workers who suddenly see their benefit period shortened and the amount of these benefits reduced have been hit hard.

People who sometimes watch these debates have experienced and continue to experience daily the effect of these cuts and they know it. But what they still do not know is that these cuts were used this year to accumulate surpluses of more than 3 billion dollars for next year and of 5 billion dollars for the following years. These surpluses will shelter the federal government from the next recession, whereas the provinces where transfers were cut dramatically will see their number of people on welfare rise.

Imagine, during this so-called period of prosperity, 5,000 more people each month go on welfare in Quebec. But there is more. Not only will the federal government be sheltered, but it has also announced a new reform of UI which will impose new cuts of $700 million next year, and of $1.5 billion the year after, on top of all the other ones my colleagues spoke of.

These amounts will be put into a new fund which is not mentioned in the act implementing the Budget, a fund which will be used at the sole discretion of the Minister of Human Resources Development. This fund is called the Human Resources Investment Fund and can come directly into play in provincial jurisdictions. It can focus more on employment development services, such as needs assessment, counselling services, literacy and basic skills training, training and experience in the workplace, child care support, and income supplements for people on welfare.

The truth is that this government proposes, with this discretionary fund, after having starved the provinces, to force them to take the heat because of the cuts they will have to make. It is Quebec's ministers who are being blamed for cuts which were decided by the federal government.

After that, the central government will have a fund and say: "So, you are having problems? We will-" As if the money did not come out of the same pocket. The central government will say that it has come up with a certain amount from UI premiums and employers premiums, from amounts which will have been cut elsewhere. And then, the government will be able to show itself in the best light. Not only that, it will be able to ignore the provinces' conditions.

For the other provinces of Canada, maybe this is not a problem, but Quebec is a distinct people and nation. In 1965-66, when René Lévesque was the minister responsible for family and welfare, he said that we should regain control over the family allowances program in order to transform it into a system adapted to our society and to our particular needs.

Thirty years later, far from having been able to build a system adapted to our own needs, to the particular needs of Quebecers, we see ourselves increasingly choked in the jurisdictions where the federal government forced us to retreat. Furthermore, the federal government keeps funds that are not available to pay for services that would conform to its own standards but would nonetheless be designed by Quebec so it can use it to intensify its direct action by handing out yellow cheques bearing a maple leaf.

Not only is that a move toward increased centralization, but it is a radical reform of the regime where Quebec thought that it had a state in which, moreover, it felt it was destinated to realize its potential. But the more things evolve, the more that state, which seemed to be a given, is stripped of the very means that were supposed to serve to protect the interests and the civic life of its citizens. From now on, the federal government, which has shown itself unable to manage its own affairs, wants to dispense all the services directly.

On the one hand, it wants the provinces, Quebec, to make the cuts and the painful choices that will make them look insensitive while, on the other hand, it will keep its spending power, its power to add to the debt. By using the unemployment insurance premiums paid by workers and businesses, it will be able to

impose not only its standards, but also its own programs, its own ways to deal with the needs.

It goes further than ever. It interferes directly, no longer through standards, no longer by requiring-as we have seen in the 40s-constitutional reforms because the only constitutional reforms this country has ever seen are those which provided for the transfer of provincial powers to Ottawa, never the other way around. Not content with having done that, not content with having starved provinces which had put in place programs according to their own requirements, the federal government is now preparing to provide these services, in total contravention of what seemed to be the beginning of a contractual relationship.

The people of Quebec, the nation of Quebec has specific and distinct needs. It is a people, a nation according to all national standards. It is a people, a nation wishing to control its own destiny because, it is unthinkable that under the present circumstances-with 808,000 persons on welfare, more than 400 000 unemployed, young people who have no longer any hope-the current situation can continue, and to be told that instead of discussing these issues, we should accept the federal government's invitation that the finance minister presumably sent us, is simply outrageous!

It is outrageous! Words fail me; it is senseless! From the very beginning the people of Quebec have always wished to obtain minimum recognition. Their efforts were always answered with a blatant and insulting no. Now, in view of the economic and social mess this country is in, a situation we are trying to get out of by any means possible, they tell us to co-operate, to collaborate. It is an insult, not for us, not for the members of the Bloc Quebecois who were sent here to defend the interests of Quebec, to protect the future of Quebec, but it is an insult for all Quebecers, for all those who are suffering from these policies, for all those who can no longer tolerate that Quebec is unable to go about it alone.

Sure, there is a debt, sure there will still be a debt afterwards, but at least we will be able to set our own priorities and to use our resources for the development of Quebec and for creating hope. Far from being useless, this debate will have given us another opportunity to reveal the true face of this government, whose only goal is to subjugate the people of Quebec once and for all.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for Mercier and her colleagues said a little while ago. I always find it difficult to understand the Bloc's logic, and today is no exception.

The Bloc is always seeking a little bit more autonomy for Quebec regarding federal expenditures. The budget gives greater autonomy and flexibility in transfer payments, and the Bloc sees in this flexibility less autonomy and more centralization. It wants to hold a referendum to separate Quebec from Canada, but now that it believes that it might lose it because, increasingly, Quebecers are saying, through polls, other media and forums, that they are not interested in the proposed separation, it is starting to realize that the referendum it decided to hold is doomed; it wants to blame the federal government for the fact that it is going to lose the referendum.

The hon. member mentioned the need to get our financial houses in order, not only at the federal level whose expenditures are, for the main part, transferred directly to the provinces, including Quebec, through equalization, social transfers and other mechanisms offering more and more freedom to the provinces. We are looking for ways to co-operate with the provinces and with Quebec, but we are accused of always trying to centralize. It is impossible to co-operate with someone who does not want to.

My question to the member is in connection with the motion before us today: How does the social transfer give less freedom to Quebec to manage its own finances within this envelope? What are the new conditions set by the Canadian government in this envelope?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, my hon. colleague says he does not understand. I think this is evident. It is also evident that Quebecers have seen over the years that this central government does not understand, that maybe it is not even listening, that the budget includes some centralizing measures. I spoke about the human resources investment fund which is an extremely important centralization measure.

I will answer the question very precisely and would ask the member to refer to clause 48 of Bill C-76, a fundamental part of that bill, which says two things; it is a two faced budget and it is a two faced clause. On the one hand it says it will increase flexibility for the provinces and, on the other, it maintains national conditions established in the Canada Health Act and, where appropriate, national standards for the operation of other social programs. Those other social programs are explained later on, in clause 53; they are health, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services. So my answer is very precise, it comes directly from the bill.

If some of us here do not understand, it is the members from the other side. I think they have not read the bill or, if they have, they feel they must do like the Minister of Finance who thinks he has to announce some amendments before he can talk, before he can answer. He used an approach which, I repeat, is entirely unparliamentary. I wonder if my hon. colleague saw those amendments because we read directly from the bill here in the House. If we were to listen to what we hear, to what the

government says are its intentions, we would find the government has many intentions, which are often contradictory.

We are members of Parliament and we work with bills. This bill entitles, even forces the Bloc Quebecois to take the positions it is taking this morning, on this opposition day. We would not be doing our job if we neglected to take such positions. The best proof of that is again that the Minister of Finance, before speaking to us, felt he had to announce some amendments we have not even seen. We are eager to see them.

Something else also confirms that we are right and that is, I repeat, that the minister felt he had to use an unparliamentary approach and announce amendments. So I can easily understand that he does not understand.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Vaudreuil.

Since my arrival in this House, I have come to the conclusion that the surprises will never end. The opposition, which never misses an opportunity to label the government a "champion of the status quo", has risen today to denounce this initiative.

This same opposition which constantly advocates decentralization, is today objecting to the government transferring greater responsibility to the provinces in the area of social security. Although they continually preach that federalism is a system that is too rigid, they are now opposing a measure precisely intended to allow greater flexibility in the application of programs.

Because this is exactly what the new Canada health and social transfer (CHST) announced in last February's budget is intended to do: to give the provinces more latitude in the area of funding and management of health care, post-secondary education and social services.

On April 1, 1996, the new program will replace the Canada assistance plan and established program financing for health and post-secondary education. Under the new program, the provinces will receive block funding for social assistance and social services, health care and post-secondary education.

It is known that the current Canada assistance plan is an obstacle to innovation because of its overly restrictive cost-sharing requirements.

The Canada health and social transfer will give the provinces the flexibility they need to implement innovative approaches to social programs so they can be more effective in meeting the specific needs of their clients. For the provinces this is good news, because it establishes social assistance and income security measures, which for all sorts of technical reasons are not always eligible for funding under the Canada assistance plan.

It is good news, in particular, for Quebec, which is always in the forefront of innovation in the area of social security. For example, Quebec's APPORT program provides wage assistance to low income families with children and encourages parents on welfare to return to the labour market and helps low income parents keep their jobs.

Since its inception in 1988, this program has never been eligible for cost-sharing under CAP because it was not based on needs testing and therefore did not meet CAP requirements. It was the same thing with its ancestor, the work income supplement program, introduced in 1979.

In the 1970s, various social measures aimed at protecting disadvantaged children in schools could not be cofinanced under CAP either because they did not meet the definition of "social protection services", which excluded education-related sercices.

Probation services for young offenders were excluded from funding under CAP for a similar reason: the definition of "social protection services" also excluded correctional services.

Several other progressive measures implemented by the provinces were not eligible for funding under CAP because they were not based on needs testing or did not meet the definition of "social protection services". This was the case for a number of programs aimed at assisting persons with disabilities or impairments, such as self administered care programs, community-based services and para-transit services.

All these measures are presently ineligible for funding under the Canada assistance plan. CAP's excessive rigidity tends to discourage provincial initiatives and innovation. Yet these are social programs and services that are effective in meeting people's real needs. They provide assistance that is geared to specific needs and situations. And all of these measures will be eligible for full funding under the new Canada health and social transfer.

As a Quebecer I am appalled that my provincial government refuses to see any other issue than the separation of Quebec. Even today's discussion will be used to fuel its separatist arguments.

I have before me examples of projects and agreements reached between the federal government and the other provinces which have taken strong initiatives in addressing the specific problems they and their citizens are facing. Unfortunately the PQ government has one issue on its mind. As the Prime Minister said this past weekend, I am ashamed the PQ government cannot look beyond the Constitution and the real problems facing

Quebecers today, especially the poor in Quebec and in my riding of Saint-Denis.

The federal government is looking forward while the PQ government is looking constantly backwards with public money. It is doing it with my taxpayer money. It is using that money to fuel separatist sentiments. The PQ government shows no leadership at all. There is no creativity or innovation in terms of sitting down with the federal government to look at what types of programs will help the most disadvantaged and the poor in Quebec.

This is the type of country members of the PQ want to create, where there is one issue only: let us separate. They do not look beyond that but place the blame on the federal government. I am tired of the same violin story playing all the time. They continue to say the federal government is the culprit of all the ills that befall Quebec society. That is totally false.

Why were many actions taken by the government with other provincial governments through negotiation and collaboration? I will name a few. The Atlantic provinces have been hit the hardest in terms of unemployment and the current economic climate. Why were these provinces able to sit down to negotiate agreements with the federal government, thereby helping the more disadvantaged and the unemployed in their provinces? Why did my provincial government not do the same thing?

It organized commissions with taxpayers' money, prepared documents with taxpayers' money, talked and talked and continues to talk and all for one reason, to achieve the dream of separation; a dream the majority of Quebecers do not share. They do not share that dream yet the PQ government, with its friends on the other side of the House, continues to talk about one thing. As we all know, it continues to talk about it in different languages. Its only concern for the poor, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged is to accuse the federal government of a lack of vision and a lack of leadership.

With this new program, the provinces will have all the latitude they need to implement and fund pilot projects and new employability measures. They will no longer have to submit to rigid and restrictive requirements, as they currently have to. If they want, they will even be able to combine social assistance, health or education measures.

In fact, with respect to social assistance, the provinces will have to meet only one requirement under the Canada health and social transfer. They will not be able to deny social services to people who are entitled to social assistance because they have not fulfilled a residency requirement.

I repeat the only real national requirement under the Canada health and social transfer with regard to social assistance is that which concerns health and residence requirements. That requirement is not based on the idle whim of the federal government. It reflects the wishes and expectations of all Canadians. It reflects our desire to preserve the notion of freedom of movement within Canada between provinces.

It seems just as contradictory to say that the government wants to limit the provinces to a mere consultative role when, as I just explained, they will be able to apply the social programs they deem most appropriate in whatever manner they see fit, and will be the ones in charge in this area.

The Canada health and social transfer is an important initiative that responds both to today's social imperatives and to the fiscal pressures facing government. And it is also a striking demonstration of the flexibility of Canadian federalism, which allows us, simply by means of legislation, to make major adjustments within areas of jurisdiction.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the remarks made by the member who just said that Quebec is the country's poorest province because of eight to ten months of Parti Quebecois government. This province has been a part of Canada for 128 years and, before the PQ took office, we had ten years of provincial Liberal government, which proves that federalism is neither desirable nor cost-effective for Quebec.

Furthermore, it is one of the basic reasons why we will separate from Canada. It is very important to us to become responsible for our own development and to stop relying on transfer payments. In this respect, the federal government is sending us a most interesting message, saying that it can no longer borrow funds at the expense of future generations as it has done for the last twenty years.

You are trying to hide this behind a transfer of responsibilities to the provinces. Try this in any other area, Madam-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I remind hon. members that they must always address the Chair.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment to the member. Try cutting anybody's budget by 15 per cent and telling them that they have all the flexibility in the world to do what they want with what is left. There is something wrong with this approach, which will inevitably lead to the balkanization of Canada.

The Council of Canadians, an organization certainly that cannot be called separatist, told the finance committee last

week, concerning this bill, that if the federal government wants to impose national standards without providing the necessary funding, it will simply come up against a wall of negativity from the provinces.

The federal government cannot ask the provinces to maintain Canadian standards if they do not have the money to do so. And they will not have the money to do so. As the saying goes, "once bitten, twice shy". How can the provinces, which were humiliated once by the oh so wise federal government when it decided to hold a forum on health without making sure of the provinces' participation, how can they agree to take part in a process that is biased from the start?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have already said that, at any rate, the Government of Quebec does not want to participate in the initiatives already taken by the federal government. Every province in Canada wants to participate, except Quebec.

I think that the official opposition should be very careful when talking about links with the federal government, because we have already proposed administrative agreements. Several of them, which could, in fact, have helped Quebecers, were not signed by the Parti Quebecois government. Now, the hon. member dares to raise such an issue.

I think we have to look at what is behind what is happening in Quebec, and I think that I put my finger on it earlier, and that is that the current government, the Parti Quebecois, has only one goal, and that is to bring about Quebec's separation from Canada. They have devoted all of their energies, human resources and money to this cause, and have taken no other initiative in the past six months.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when Rome burned, Nero fiddled. He was out of touch with the day's reality. Similarly, I find this motion out of touch with reality.

The members of the opposition try at all cost, take every opportunity, to discredit the federal government, particularly with regard to interprovincial and government jurisdictions.

The only thing Canadians and Quebecers want from their government, be it provincial or federal, is action. Let us stop this stupid business about jurisdiction of power.

Canada is undergoing nothing short of a revolution. Our economy is being transformed from a traditional resource based and labour intensive one to one that is globalized, information based and knowledge intensive. The effects are being felt by business and industry. They are certainly being felt often painfully by workers, be they loggers, farmers, fishermen, miners or even assembly line workers. They are being felt by our teachers and students and they are being felt by governments at all levels.

Nowadays we warn young people preparing to enter the workforce that they will probably change careers several times during their working lives; I am talking about not just jobs but careers.

We have engaged once again in a sterile debate on jurisdiction while our constituents, including those of the Bloc Quebecois, are looking to their governments to create the environment to guarantee continuing jobs and ensure the training to match the skills needed for tomorrow's jobs.

The Government of Canada is determined to remain steadfast to that goal. The government was swept to power with a resounding victory and a vote of confidence by Canadians and Quebecers who were clearly ready for change. They believed in our commitment to create jobs and to prepare people for those new jobs.

While the members of the Bloc Quebecois contemplate their navel and get lost in jurisdictional discussions, the government, fortunately, is not letting Canadians down.

Since the government came into office no less than 454,000 full time jobs have been created; strong evidence of enough employer confidence in the economy to offer stable full time employment rather than part time jobs. This job creation performance has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions including those of the OECD.

The OECD predicted Canadian employment growth of 1.2 per cent last year. It was almost double the rate, growing at 2.1 per cent.

I remember a former prime minister said we would have to wait until the year 2002 to see unemployment fall below 10 per cent. Fortunately she did not get elected and today we are enjoying an employment rate of 9.7 per cent. We hope to do better. We must do better.

The OECD estimates Canada's employment growth for 1995-96 will be the highest among all G-7 countries, even surpassing the United States. Given our track record so far there is every reason to suspect these predictions will once again prove to be modest.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois should also recognize that Quebec has benefitted by Canada's efforts.

In the employment figures for the last two months of this year Quebec has experienced strong employment growth with a gain

of 14,000 jobs in February alone. The employment rate in Quebec declined from 11.5 per cent, the lowest since 1991.

Job creation initiatives by the government directly and in co-operation with the province have contributed a significant share. Since October 1993 some 120,000 jobs have been created and almost 36,000 Canadians were provided with training through initiatives of their government such as the infrastructure program, youth internship and strategic initiatives, to name a few.

Statistics are very cold. They do not tell us the human stories behind the job creation figures. They do not describe how so many Canadians have regained their self-respect knowing they are no longer dependants but contributors to this fine country.

Statistics do not show the efforts of determined people and co-operative government action and how they can be made to work for the good of all Canadians.

Statistics do not tell us, for example, about Le relais des jeunes adultes du Sud-Ouest de Montréal. It is a job search training organization funded by the federal government in partnership with two Quebec departments. Human Resources Development Canada provided nearly $800,000 last year. Sixty-five per cent of the participants in this program have found work.

Statistics also do not tell us how 250 people are participating in entrepreneurship development jointly funded by Quebec and Canada, where 21 entrepreneurs have set up their own businesses.

Statistics also do not tell us of the federal-Quebec effort that arose from the closing of the Hyundai plant in Bromont. Some $8 million federal funds helped 556 participants, 80 per cent of whom have found work or gone on to further vocational training.

I could go on citing such projects. None of them are earth shaking in themselves, however they constitute the real story behind Canada's good fortune in terms of job creation.

The other straight fact to which members opposite have turned a blind eye to time and time again is that co-operative action among governments, including the federal government and Quebec, does succeed in helping Canadians help themselves.

Canada's economic prospects have not looked this good in a very long time. Productivity has surged. Canada's cost competitiveness is at the highest level in more than 40 years. Our trade surplus is up. All of this is not by accident.

From the speech from the throne which formed the government's agenda, through to the most recent speech by the Minister of Finance, the Government of Canada has introduced cohesive and concerted strategies aimed at advancing the agenda for jobs and growth.

Last October the Minister of Finance tabled "A New Framework for Economic Policy" which proposed a broad framework for policies for economic growth. Then "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate" takes steady aim at the deficit. Equally, the Minister of Industry released "Building a More Innovative Economy", a series of measures and strategies to create a climate of economic growth and job opportunities throughout the country.

In February the budget delivered on the government's pledge to get the country's fiscal house in order, restoring investor confidence and clearing the way for further employment growth.

Taken together, these efforts are radically reshaping government involvement in the economy. They are already producing results. The policy initiatives, coupled with strategic partnerships with the provinces, territories, business, labour, educators, community workers and committed individuals are creating jobs for Canadians.

There is a message for all of us in this. Healthy economies in today's highly competitive and internationalized world are not made without consistent, concerted efforts on the part of all citizens, all businesses, all institutions and all levels of governments.

If Canadians are not up to the competition, job creation will simply not continue. We are a small market in global terms. It takes the strength of united effort to ensure competitiveness. The workers of many nations are quite ready and, in today's global economy, quite able to jump into the breech should Canadians flag in their efforts.

It is the job of governments to do everything in their power to ensure the best possible tools are in place in order to develop an effective program to create quality jobs and to equip our workers to find and, more importantly, keep jobs.

It does not serve our constituents well in any part of Quebec or Canada to fiddle while Rome burns with petty jurisdictional concerns. The Government of Canada is prepared to challenge conventional wisdom, to adopt new policies and fresh approaches.

We have made it clear that the government is willing to work closely and co-operate with the provinces and the territories.

A number of new measures from strategic initiatives of the human resources investment fund have already been outlined to address problems with labour market development. We recognize the need for flexibility. Labour market demands vary from province to province. Each region of the country has its own vision and its own agenda. We understand that and local people best respond to local needs.

I suggest to members opposite that their constituents do not care what logo is on the letterhead as long as efficient, quality service is provided and prospective employment income can improve.

The federal government must clearly work with the provinces to maintain national standards, ensuring that the skills people develop are recognized and portable throughout the country and keep us competitive with the world.

The federal government is ready to go to work. It is confident that we can perform this role in a complementary fashion that will support and reinforce the labour force development efforts of all provinces and territorial governments.

In conclusion, I take as proof of our ability to succeed Canada's recent record of growth and job creation, the envy of every G-7 member. It demonstrates the soundness of the course charted for Canada by the government. With less bickering it would undoubtedly have been much better.

Now is the time for co-operation. Canadians demand it. Our task is to explore how we can work together to reform, restructure and rebuild our communities and our country to ensure that each and every Quebecer, each and every Canadian has the opportunity to share in our future prosperity.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was very surprised to hear the hon. member for Vaudreuil accuse the official opposition of playing the fiddle while Rome burns. The question is, who started the fire in the first place? The hon. member for Vaudreuil should have listened to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that what is happening in Canada today reminds us of the arsonist who blamed the firefighters for doing a bad job, because these fires have been burning for a long time in Canada.

When we realize that for the past 12 years, the Canadian government has cut transfer payments to Quebec by a total of $14.4 billion, which means more than one billion annually, is it any wonder this would have an impact on the public finances of the Government of Quebec? This year, the federal government maintained this trend by cutting another billion. Next year-not this year, because of the referendum campaign but next year-it will be $2.4 billion, reflecting the government's increasingly devious plans to make cuts at the expense of low wage earners.

I want to commend the hon. member for Mercier on her excellent and very instructive speech in which she explained that the unemployment insurance fund does not belong to the federal government. It consists of the premiums paid by workers and employers, but the federal government is appropriating this money, so that after bringing the provinces, including Quebec, to their knees, it can then say: If you do not have enough money for your social programs, we do, thanks to the way we managed these funds which do not belong to us-the unemployment insurance premiums paid by workers and their employers.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil what he thinks about all this, what he thinks about the announcement in the budget speech which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and what he thinks about this committee that is looking into the administration of old age pensions, to increase them, of course.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Rome is burning. They used to talk about the "beau risque". Now it is a "beau virage", and today, we have this separatist mirage Quebecers are being asked to embrace, but no one is really interested.

That is why I said that Rome is burning, or rather that Nero is fiddling instead of dealing with the real problems in our society.

The hon. member said that the federal government just happened to leave out equalization, because equalization always benefits Quebec. But if we include equalization, the tax burden on the province of Quebec represents only 1.4 per cent of their total revenue. That is their tax burden: $350 million. But when we talk about money, it is always the same money and the same taxpayer.

The municipal government takes it out of your left-hand pocket, the federal government takes it out of both pockets and the provincial government takes it out of your right-hand pocket, but the pockets all belong to the same taxpayer. Yes, some responsibilities have been passed on to the provinces, but they were also allowed some flexibility. Flexibility in how they manage their programs and structure them according to their needs.

This is not a burden on the provinces. In fact, six provinces have already brought down balanced budgets. It is now up to the Province of Quebec to do likewise before the referendum.