Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Chair that members of the Bloc Quebecois who will now speak in the debate on the budget will each take ten minutes to express their views.
I think it is important to compare the government's intentions as expressed in the speech from the throne with what the government is actually doing in the budget. I would like to quote a short passage from the speech from the throne: "It will be the policy of the government to seek to clarify the federal government's responsibilities in relation to those of other orders of government, to eliminate overlap and duplication, and to find better ways to provide services so that they represent the best value for taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of the people".
Could anyone tell me where in the budget we can find the government's response to these good intentions expressed in the speech from the throne?
Again, the budget brought down by the Liberal government is a centralist one, and the burden of reducing the deficit has been laid squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the provinces.
That is not the kind of equity Canadians expected. This is one more instance of the government's inertia. Once again, we have ample proof that Quebec is stifled by federalism, which tends to neutralize any constructive and innovative policy that would be useful to Quebec society.
The Minister of Finance keeps repeating to anyone who is willing to listen that his budget followed an unprecedented series of consultations with Canadians, and a costly one at that. Yes, he consulted, but he picked and chose his consultants. Did he go to the middle class and the neediest in our society to hear their views and concerns? Did he go to the Lac-Saint-Jean area, to which the Prime Minister referred as a small community?
I represent the riding of Chicoutimi, where unemployment is particularly high. The unemployment rate for the metropolitan area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, according to Statistics Canada, was 15.7 per cent for January 1994, not seasonally adjusted.
The average annual unemployment rate for 1992 was 13.9 per cent, while in 1993, the average rate was 16.1 per cent. These figures are unacceptable. In January 1994, the Chicoutimi-Jonquière metropolitan area had 9,000 unemployed workers out of a total labour force of 60,000. When we speak of 9,000 unemployed persons, we are really talking about thousands of other people who are affected, families, children and households in dire straits. Furthermore, the rate of 15.7 per cent does not include those who are no longer looking for work, those who have grown discouraged. This figure of 15.7 per cent does not include seasonal workers either. It is a conservative figure which masks a reality that is far bleaker.
Did the Minister of Finance consult with the people on the streets? This budget contains all kinds of recipes to fight the unemployed, instead of unemployment. The maximum period during which a person can collect benefits will be reduced. The number of weeks of work required to qualify for UI is being increased from 10 to 12 weeks. The benefit rate has been reduced to 55 per cent, a drop of 3.5 per cent. The overall feeling of certain well-known economists is that more than 50 per cent of the projected drop in the federal deficit will be borne by unemployed Quebecers and Canadians. This is the government's recipe for fighting unemployment.
People's privacy will not be spared. Various factors, such as family status, common law relationships and economic circumstances, will be checked. One inquiry after another will be made before a person can qualify for the program. Moreover, the government has also called for a review of the country's social security programs, including unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan, the child tax credit program, employment and training programs, established programs financing in the education field and social development. What is the government planning for the future?
After raising some hope among the people by talking about job creation, this budget disillusions workers; even worse, it attacks the poorest in our society. The Liberals' pseudo-strategy for employment is based mainly on consultations, studies and committee work.
There is less and less food in Canadians' refrigerators. Let us not wait for the fridge to be empty; otherwise the people will rise up and we will have to bear the blame. On October 25, 1993, Canadians forcefully said that they want change. The government side seems to have already forgotten that because it is now following in the previous government's footsteps, it is repeating the same scenarios.
Furthermore, it is the first government since Confederation to forecast such a large deficit, $39.7 billion, just under the psychological level of $40 billion. No economist and no tax expert would have dared to make such a forecast.
Surely an infrastructure program where the costs are shared with the provinces and the municipalities will not solve all problems by itself. Cities and towns will have to go into debt to participate in the program.
To reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97, it would have to be brought down to about $25 billion. The government's budgetary objectives are hit or miss. The proposed measures do not announce what was promised, namely jobs. The budget presented by the Minister of Finance is deficient and misleading.
In its speech from the throne, the government announced its intentions. Today, with its budget, the government is showing its colour, the same as the colour of its book. Canada is in the red and nothing is being done to fight the underground economy, black-market employment.