Jean H. Leroux

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I worked in education for many years and I would like to congratulate my colleague opposite on what he said about Canada's youth.

I fully agree with the hon. member that our young people in Canada have unfortunately been sacrificed and that at this stage there does not seem to be a policy in the budget to put our young people to work-I will not say back to work. I think it is catastrophic for Canada to have young people who want to earn their living one day preparing and studying very hard without even a chance of starting to work or else having to accept work that is far less than what they could do. I agree with the hon. member.

What we said and what we are saying is that the budget will not spur economic recovery. The budget that we debated only plugs the holes and I think that it is a very conservative budget, and possibly a Conservative budget as well.

Now I think, as the Bloc proposed-it is an attractive idea-we should form a committee of the House, not a joint committee of the House and the Senate, but a committee of the people's elected representatives to look at the government's spending item by item, so that we, the people's elected representatives-because when we go back to our ridings and when people talk about politicians in Canada, they are talking about us here in this House, and I think that we have a responsibility-should be able to review the budgets item by item and be able to make cuts where required to get the money and help create jobs.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have almost reached the end of the period provided under the Standing Orders for debate on the opposition motion presented by the hon. member for the Reform Party, concerning the Budget Plan for 1994.

I think the motion presented by the Reform Party is only a partial response to the expectations and policies I am about to explain, regarding the budget, job creation and cuts in public spending.

As you know, Canada's economy is the worst among G-7 countries. Recession, deficit and unemployment have become household words, unfortunately! Canada's monetary policy, although aimed at controlling inflation, merely exacerbates endemic unemployment in this country. Lacklustre job creation and the deterioration of Canada's public finances are largely responsible for the lack of vigour of our economy. It is not a pretty picture.

This lack of economic growth which has affected Canada for many years has led to some very serious consequences for Canada and Quebec. This lack of economic growth was followed by budgetary irresponsibility in federal public finances. At first, the Canadian government borrowed to finance existing and new programs. Subsequently, it had to borrow to pay the interest on previous loans, and now we are caught up in this debt cycle. Interest payments on the national debt have absorbed an increasingly larger proportion of government revenues. That is where we are now.

The debt's spiral has slowed somewhat, but this government's fiscal policy defies all logic.

The government is doing more to increase its tax revenue than to control its spending.

In pre-budget consultations, the Minister of Finance implied that he clearly understood the financial reality facing the federal government. It was an especially rude awakening when he announced a projected deficit of $39.7 billion. The saddest part is that the public servants whose salaries are frozen, the military people who are losing their jobs, like the other victims of the Minister of Finance, the elderly and the unemployed, are being sacrificed for almost nothing.

We are no further ahead in reducing the deficit. We might as well say that the effort to reduce the deficit is practically non-existent. In its 1994 budget, the government wants to finance its projected budget deficit for 1994-95 by a very clear increase in direct individual and corporate income taxes. I refer here to the revenue projections in the finance minister's budget plan, where direct taxes are the only revenue in the budget which could enable the government to achieve this deficit objective of $39.7 billion.

Does the government really think that it can tax the people of Quebec and Canada more? It is disturbing to see that one of the solutions adopted by the government is to increase the tax burden of middle-income seniors and of middle-class taxpayers in general.

Consumers have lost confidence in the economy. The financial markets are skeptical about promises to balance future budgets. In fact, the government has not made the cuts needed to reduce tax rates in the medium term and to revive the confidence of Quebecers and Canadians.

It is glaringly obvious: unemployment has not come down from its high rate. In February, Statistics Canada reported a rate of 11.1 per cent for all of Canada, while Quebec recorded an average rate of 12.5 per cent. Young people employed full time and men employed part time accounted for most of the lost jobs. Statistics Canada estimates that the labour force declined by 15,000, a sign that many Canadians have given up looking for work.

The Minister of Finance is continuing the Conservative policy of lower benefits for most of the people. The measure concerning low-income people with dependent children only hides its desire to save. It is a Tory policy with a compassionate face.

Young people will once again be the victims of reform. These measures will limit access and push some of these people towards social assistance. Eastern Canada, including Quebec, will be hit especially hard by the elimination of regional unemployment scales above 13 per cent and by the reduced number of weeks of benefits.

The unemployment problem in Canada and Quebec is that there are not enough jobs for everyone and that people must go from one short-term job to the next. It is not with 45,000 temporary jobs that we will give renewed hope to the 1,590,000 unemployed in Canada, of whom 500,000 are in Quebec.

Has the time not come to reconsider work sharing for those who want it, to put all those people back to work and return to a full-employment policy? Furthermore, it is urgent that the government turn the situation around to favour the development of small and medium-sized businesses throughout Quebec and Canada. Small and medium-sized businesses create jobs and generate wealth. The government missed this goal it should have emphasized more.

Today, too many urban centres look like disaster areas. Social inequalities are getting worse at school and in the labour market, and we are shocked by the brutal return of physical and moral poverty. Everyone can see the homeless on the streets but few of us know that food banks are stretched to the limit. There is no more space. It is always the weakest who must pay when economic growth slows to a standstill, as you and I know.

According to the 1991 census data, the Montreal metropolitan area holds the Canadian record for the highest poverty level: 22 per cent of the population. Behind this figure is a social reality that Canadian federalism cannot be proud of. It is still possible to give Canadians the social programs they need if we see them as a right and a necessity rather than a luxury.

Instead of proposing measures for a healthy distribution of wealth throughout the country, the government is going after the middle class and attacking the universality of social programs, even though this policy promotes social cohesion. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois supports investments to consolidate the existing infrastructure, create jobs and lower the unemployment rate, provided that Quebec be the main authority responsible.

Point (a) of the pending opposition motion presented by the Reform Party goes against these objectives of economic development for the regions. The moratorium on all new spending programs announced in the budget is not compatible with our objective of regional development.

Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my attention more specifically to the public spending cuts announced in the latest budget.

The Minister of Finance recently announced that program spending would be reduced by restructuring the social security system, reforming the unemployment insurance system and reducing transfers to individuals, for example, family allowance payments. However, the minister also announced that total budgetary spending would increase by $2.8 billion until 1996. This increase includes debt servicing charges. In fact, despite the cuts announced by the government, overall program spending will continue to increase. In essence, all the government is doing is reallocating expenditures without actually reducing government program spending. It is not tackling head-on cases of waste and mismanagement within the system. Instead, it is targeting social programs.

The government has not addressed the root of the problem. Instead, like its Conservative predecessors, it hopes that the anemic economic recovery-a recovery that it has failed to stimulate-will get state revenues back on track. The government's economic growth and inflation hypotheses are realistic. What is not realistic, however, given the growth of the underground economy, is the government's belief, as reflected in the budget, that government revenues will increase at a faster rate than the Gross Domestic Product. In short, the government is counting on the weak recovery to bring down the current deficit.

How, under the circumstances, can the government justify increasing its level of spending, all the more so when we know that it is currently seeking the authority to borrow $34.3 billion for 1994-95 in order to meet its financial commitments?

Mr. Speaker, I find it unconscionable that the budget provides for an increase in public spending up until 1996. It is absolutely essential for the government to eliminate waste before it can put public finances in order. The government must give the example; it must restore public confidence as well as its own respectability. There are a lot more savings to be made by eliminating waste than by making cuts to social programs. Freezing public servants' salaries, restructuring public services and increasing the middle class tax burden are last resort solutions. There are other options still.

For the last three years, the Auditor General has identified waste or unnecessary expenditures totalling no less than $5 billion annually. This year, the Auditor General has discovered $700 million more in squandering than in the previous fiscal year.

Merely implementing the Auditor's recommendations would bring enormous relief, without any tax increase or social programs cuts. The equation is a simple one.

Taxpayers are fed up because they feel that the government is wasting public money and is after the middle class, which is overburdened with taxes. Five years ago, governments were making the same frivolous expenditures and wasting just as much, but nobody said anything. Today, because of the pressures resulting from the appalling state of public finances, such mismanagement is strongly denounced.

Fiscal consolidation is a must be carried out at the federal level to restore confidence among Quebecers and Canadians.

The chronic weakness of our economy is not due to a bad performance of our foreign trade but, rather, to the stagnation of domestic demand. The deficit must also be reduced because interest on Canada's foreign debt is the highest among G-7 countries.

Deficit reduction is conditional upon reducing public spending and waste, as well as eliminating tax unfairness. This streamlining exercise could result in savings of $10 billion. Of that amount, five billion dollars could be invested to stimulate employment, including by building a high-speed train line, whereas the other five billion could be used to reduce the deficit. Such an initiative would do a lot to restore taxpayers' confidence.

The government must give the example and restore public confidence. A true social contract must be based on a sound and balanced tax system. Unfortunately, it is a fact that over the last two decades governments have only contributed to create an imbalance between taxes paid and services provided by the state to taxpayers.

In order to eliminate waste, unnecessary spending and mismanagement within the government administration, the Bloc Quebecois proposed that the government set up a parliamentary committee to review each budget spending item, and it is asking that such a committee be created.

Setting up such a committee is justified because the latest Auditor General's report showed that Quebecers and Canadians who believed that some public funds were wasted were right.

That is the reason we want to create an analytical and revision committee of the governmental spending programs formed by elected representatives and not by civil servants. We believe elected representatives are entitled to supervise and ensure that the objectives of the different spending programs comply and that the allocated public funds are spent with efficiency, effectiveness and equity.

We believe that Parliament does not receive the appropriate information pertaining to the results of the different ministries and crown corporations wasting thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Guided by the report of the Auditor General of Canada we believe that the wasted public funds and the different cases of mismanagement are drops in the ocean.

A parliamentary committee responsible for reviewing government expenditures, item by item, could ensure that Parliament and thus the public be better informed of the government's financial situation. So, we encourage the Reform Party to support the establishment of the parliamentary committee on the item-by-item review of government expenditures to enable us to keep a closer eye on how public funds are managed, which will greatly help bring the deficit down.

I do support point (C) of the motion, regarding the production of quarterly reports on the progress made on deficit reduction. With regular status reports, I think we will be able to set realistic deadlines to achieve our goals.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Thank you for your courtesy, Madam Speaker. At the risk of repeating myself, I would simply like to add that we, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, were elected to ensure that Quebec is not merely a province on the receiving end of social assistance and unemployment insurance. On every issue and in every area of federal jurisdiction, we will ensure that Quebec gets everything it has coming to it. Finally, I would just like to say that in the past, Quebec did not get its fair share and the time has come to put things right.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his words. I think that we do not need to set up a joint committee to decide on conversion policy. I remember very well during the election seeing programs of different political parties which already dealt with the subject. As my fellow member of the Bloc Quebecois just said, I think that at some point the government will have to act and shoulder its responsibilities.

Now they seem to want to have us discuss all sorts of subjects in the name of a so-called democratization of the House, but one thing is certain: the government was elected to govern and not only to consult.

I think that at this stage it would be advisable for our duly elected government to get to work and make the decisions it must make so that Canada can finally have a policy which reflects the needs of the people.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my remarks will deal with disparities between Quebec and other parts of Canada.

Quebec is one of the most disadvantaged areas in terms of economic benefits from National Defence contracts. Quebec's per capita share of defence spending is clearly below average. The following figures speak for themselves. An internal document from the Department of National Defence indicates that per capita spending for 1990-91 was $1,217 in Nova Scotia, this province ranking first, followed by New Brunswick in second place with $1,050, while Quebec ranked sixth, with a per capita share of defence spending of only $316.

Updated data for fiscal year 1992-93 indicate that the trends observed with regard to inequities experienced by Quebec in terms of economic distribution have worsened. The latest figures from National Defence, provided by the Minister of National Defence himself when he met with parliamentarians on February 10, confirm that Quebec's share of benefits has shrunk considerably. Actually, 16 per cent of the benefits go to Quebec, while Ontario gets 36 per cent, the Atlantic provinces, 16 per cent like Quebec, and Western provinces, 20 per cent.

Defence spending includes various expenditures. There are infrastructure expenditures, personnel expenditures, equipment expenditures as well as procurement and services expenditures. In terms of personnel expenditures alone, with 25.4 per cent of the population of Canada living on its territory, Quebec received only $773 million in benefits in 1990-91, as compared to $1,821 million for Ontario with 36.6 per cent of the population. Even Nova Scotia got more than Quebec, namely $793 million.

In 1992, the Department of National Defence conducted an in-house assessment of the extent to which Quebec was receiving its fair share of certain types of defence expenditures. This assessment demonstrated how unfairly Quebec was treated by the federal government with regard to defence spending as a percentage of Canada's GDP. Inequities were found under the following budget items: construction, research and development, operations and maintenance, Reserves and Cadets-to supply and equip the cadets-overall defence spending, personnel costs, Regular Force, civilian personnel. In all these areas, Quebec was clearly at a disadvantage.

As far as defence infrastructure in Canada is concerned, it should be pointed out that Quebec's share represents only 13 per cent of the value of the federal government's defence installations, as compared to 34 per cent for the Western provinces, 27 per cent for the Maritime provinces and 26 per cent for Ontario. To remedy the situation, the Canadian government and the Department of National Defence, under Marcel Masse, former Conservative Minister of National Defence, had developed a major infrastructure modernization program for Quebec, building drill halls here and these at great cost. Capital expenditures apparently exceeded $100 million.

These projects have raised Quebec's share of funds allocated to construction up to 19.2 per cent of the total amount of this budget item. However, they are now put in jeopardy in the short term by the upcoming budget, which will be tabled on February 22 as we all know. It is important that Quebec remain a priority because it is clearly disadvantaged with regard to government expenditures in those areas.

Technically, Quebec has four large military bases, which provide jobs for thousands of people: Valcartier, 6,085 employees; Montreal, 3,922; Saint-Jean, 2,031; and Bagotville, 1,782.

The Department of National Defence remains a major employer in Quebec with more than 13,820 employees listed on these four bases. Though the numbers are substantial, we must not forget that comparatively speaking, Quebec is not getting its

fair share, and we object to any cuts at the expense of Quebec's economy.

Another aspect of the regional economic impact of defence procurement contracts is the issue of interprovincial trade in the arms production sector in Canada.

John Treddenick, an economist with the Royal Military College in Kingston, looked into this subject and according to his study, Quebec performed well on direct contracts with the Department of National Defence but was getting less than its share of economic spin-offs, increasingly.

The potential for absorbing defence contracts into the economy in Quebec is not the same as in Ontario. The big winner in interprovincial sub-contracting is Ontario, because it is able to get major sub-contracts from projects managed in other provinces. In this respect, it occupies a unique position compared with all Canadian provinces, with a defence complex that far outweights the size of its direct contracts from the Department of National Defence.

However, Quebec's defence production is still substantial. The Quebec economy, and especially the economy of the Montreal area, is very dependent on National Defence contracts, as was pointed out repeatedly by Professor Yves Bélanger at the University of Quebec in Montreal, who is an expert on these issues. Consequently, an industrial conversion strategy must be prepared as soon as possible.

At this stage, we should not have a special debate on National Defence policy until the government has released its white paper. This position applies both to the issue of downsizing in military bases and training centres for peacekeepers. In fact, there are several reasons why the latter initiative should not be supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

First, it is unrealistic to believe that countries from all over the world would come to train in these centres. Who is going to pay the cost of bringing international troops and their equipment over here? The UN does not have the resources to pay for all that.

Second, it is a fact that Canadian peacekeepers are among the best trained in the world. Why bother setting up a training centre, when our troops already receive excellent training at existing bases.

Third, it would be dishonest and hypocritical to let the public think that creating training centres would not generate additional costs for the Canadian government. How can we tell people we are cutting back on defence spending, and at the same time keep military bases open to train peacekeepers? This does not make sense, it is misleading and the Bloc Quebec cannot support such proposals.

What is my party's position? We received a mandate from the people of Quebec to fight existing inequities and ensure that Quebec gets its fair share.

[The Late Irénée Pelletier, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, although I did not know Mr. Pelletier, I wish to recognize his service in government from 1972 to 1984. On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Irénée Pelletier, former member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.

[Quebec Sovereignty, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Montreal Gazette , one could read ``Anglo-Catholics demoralized by Bloc victory''. On behalf of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to reassure my fellow anglo-Quebecers. We have been elected by the people of Quebec to promote and prepare the sovereignty of Quebec. Perhaps now is the right time for the English speaking of Quebec to join us, to get more involved in the preparation of Quebec's future.

Let us look forward together. Doing this would make the process of change easier for us and the rest of Canada, hopefully side by side in harmony as partners in a new deal.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my hon. colleague's speech. I think there is some truth to what he said.

Now, I would like to point out to him some of the differences that may exist between Canadians from other parts of Canada and Quebecers. French-speaking Canadians have always depended a great deal on the federal government in Ottawa to safeguard their rights. We in Quebec, on the other hand, have always felt that where overlap or duplication occur, it would be preferable to assign these rights to the Government of Quebec.

When the Fathers of Confederation gathered in 1865, 1866 and 1867, English-speaking people supported the idea of a single government. Quebec is responsible for the fact that we have two levels of government in this country, because its representatives insisted that this course of action be taken.

Therefore, I think it is very important to note that while Bloc Quebecois members speak on behalf of Quebecers, they are also concerned about problems affecting other regions of Canada as well. I hope the hon. member understands this.

I also want to congratulate him on his speech. As this session progresses, it would appear to us that the Liberals have split into two factions, one which I would qualify as Liberal-Reform and the other, as Liberal with social-democratic leanings.

This debate will likely give members a chance to analyze opposite views and ultimately to take a coherent stand.

As for us, what matters most, as I have stated repeatedly in this House, are the rights of the least fortunate in our society. I listened to the speeches of the Reform Party members and I think we all agree that the reform process now being initiated must not affect the most disadvantaged members of society. Would the hon. member care to respond to what I have just said?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his election. I also would like to congratulate the people of his riding for electing him. He made a speech this morning which is very pertinent.

This speech is quite consistent with the expectations of my party, the Bloc Quebecois. He gave us his point of view very eloquently, and I would like to ask him a question. Does he agree that the reform we are about to undertake should not affect disadvantaged people in our society?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said in his speech that people should live within their means. Does that mean people who have little or no resources do not have the right to live? To hear some members of this House, you would think there were no poor people in Canada. I think we should not introduce reforms at the expense of the neediest in this country, and I would ask the hon. member to give us his views on the subject.