Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate on the 1995-96 budget.
First of all, I must say that this budget is very disappointing. It is hard on the workers, the disadvantaged and Quebec. It does not contain any job creation measures. There is nothing in this budget for the 800,000 Quebecers on UI and welfare who want to work. In this budget like in his last budget, the Minister of Finance is announcing further cuts in unemployment insurance. Quebec however will get back less than it will contribute in 1995. It is clear that federalism does not profit Quebec.
This year, Quebec workers and employers will contribute $4.8 billion to the UI fund, but Quebec claimants will receive about $4.7 billion in benefits and various employment-related services. This will means a shortfall of approximately $118 million for Quebec. Just to restore the pre-recession level of employment, more than 800,000 jobs would have to be created in Canada.
In that sense, the budget offers no hope to the 1,200,000 jobless Canadians, based on Statistics Canada's figures.
Instead, the government sets itself a target of 45,000 job cuts in the federal public service, the most extensive one-time workforce reduction ever made in the public sector. Ottawa, Hull, Montreal, Toronto and many smaller cities and local economies will be hard hit by such a massive layoff of civil servants. I want to show solidarity with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and all government employees who will be laid off.
In addition, seniors' income is threatened by the government's announcement of an impending review of old age pensions scheduled for 1997 and designed to reduce program benefits.
In these times of drastic cuts in social programs, the government can almost certainly be expected to try and raise premiums, reduce benefits and tie pension income to family income. Thousands of seniors, UI and welfare recipients are very unhappy with this budget, particularly in my riding of Bourassa, where they are in great numbers.
The federal contribution to social programs, i.e. welfare, health and education, will be reduced from $17.3 billion in 1994-95 to $10.3 billion in 1997-98. This 40 per cent cut over three years will force the provinces to make further cuts with nothing offsetting these cuts.
On the other hand, costly duplication will be allowed to continue at the expense of the taxpayers, and so will squandering.
Also, the government does not go after the thousands of businesses which do not pay taxes, nor does it do anything about the tax havens accessible by virtue of tax treaties signed with other countries. This budget looks like it was drafted by Wall Street financiers. Tax on bank capital is increased, but only for a certain period. Consequently, banks will temporarily contribute about $100 million, while the Royal Bank alone made profits in excess of $1.2 billion in 1994.
As for family trusts, which Bloc Quebecois members denounced on many occasions, the minister maintains existing privileges for another five years. Over the next three years, the minister will cut $307 million from CMHC's budget, which is responsible for social housing, a very important issue in my riding of Bourassa, in Montréal-Nord. This unfair budget also reduces by $32 million the amount of subsidies to Quebec dairy producers.
The government also intends to reduce by $1.3 billion, over a three-year period, the budget for international assistance. That decision is in full contradiction with the white paper on Canada's foreign policy, which was tabled in February. I come from a developing country and I care a lot about this issue. It is a shame for our country, which will only allocate 0.29 per cent of its GNP to international co-operation, while the objective set by the UN is 0.7 per cent. This is the lowest level since the sixties. Meanwhile, at the recent world summit on social development, in Copenhagen, industrial nations, including Canada, just pledged to increase official development assistance. How hypocritical!
I also want to discuss the cuts affecting the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Because of drastic increases in immigration fees, family reunification will become increasingly difficult. The most blatant example is the tax on immigration. From now on, all adults who want to immigrate to Canada will have to pay $975, in addition to a $500 processing fee, which
means they will have to pay $1,475 just for the right to settle in Canada.
In many countries, this amount is the equivalent of a year's wages or even more. A family of four will have to pay about $4,000. Many people whose refugee status has been recognized cannot afford to pay $500 to obtain permanent residence. Some people arrive here without any money at all. How can they deal with this increase? It is unacceptable that future immigrants who never lived in Canada or visited this country will have to pay for the Canadian government's deficit.
The government overlooks the fact that the country of origin has already invested a lot of money in educating these immigrants who are a formidable asset to Canadian and Quebec society. Furthermore, people will have to pay $200 instead of $80 to obtain citizenship certificates. This is unacceptable. The government expects to collect more than $100 million per year as a result. This discriminates against workers and poor people from developing countries, like the head tax on Chinese immigrants in the 19th century, which was intended to discourage the Chinese from coming to Canada.
The government has shown no compassion at all for people who seek the protection of Canada under the Geneva Convention. The budget cuts will have a severe impact on the IRB. The number of commissioners who deal with refugees will drop from 175 to 112. The board's budget will be reduced from $82 million to $77 million. On the whole, the budget of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is shrinking, despite the fact that fees for services rendered have gone up, sometimes by 200 or 300 per cent.
Because of office closures, staff cuts, the creation of two huge processing centres in Vegreville and Mississauga and other operating problems, the department is no longer capable of carrying out its mandate.
On top of that, we had the appointment a few days ago of Jean-Guy Fleury as executive director of IRB. Mr. Fleury formerly held a position with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a fact that was omitted from his biographical notes.
Why does the Liberal government want to establish this kind of association between immigration and intelligence and national security matters?