Mr. Speaker, thanks to some now well known communication technology, the minister of finance had organized the release of his 1995-96 Budget so that the Canadian public would be prepared for the worse.
The medias took part in this, and we could hear or read comments from reporters, analysts and doomwatchers predicting, before the fateful day, that the Budget would really hurt. So we had to take advantage of these last moments before the axe would fall.
On the said day, everyone was almost unanimous. It was not so bad after all. Only the opposition members were criticizing. And criticisms from Bloc members and Reform members are normal, since that is their job. That is why they are here.
So, instant relief replaced the anxiety of the day before. And the ink that was used to print that budget had hardly dried before that the relief was replaced with concern. Why? Because several of the cuts announced will once again affect the poorest of our society, or the middle class which, ultimately, pays more than its fair share. Because several government decisions were put off indefinitely.
Subsidies to transportation in the East were eliminated. The federal government will now have to agree with the Quebec government on what to do about the $80 million, or $15 million a year, needed to compensate for the loss of subsidies in transportation. There is some uncertainty about whether that money will be used to build many kilometres of highways or to create permanent jobs.
Are we going to be bright enough to devote only a small part of these millions to asphalt and the major part to an investment fund to promote the creation of lasting jobs in eastern Quebec?
Changes in unemployment insurance rules, but the reform is shelved for now.
As for old age pensions, the universality principle is questioned due to the introduction of a family income principle which, when implemented, will be detrimental to many women who will be deprived of their pensions because their husbands have high incomes.
Transfer payments to provinces are being reduced through the creation of what the hon. member for Outremont called the NCST. I hope it is not a venereal disease, although it might be just as bad.
Post-secondary education financing and the loan and grant system for students are being modified.
The defence budget was not cut enough.
Family trusts will remain unchanged until 1999.
Taxpayers are the only ones to foot the bill through increases in the price of cigarettes and gas.
The lobbying by banks and large corporations worked well, their tax increases were so insignificant that we are almost justified in saying that the rich were spared by the last budget. The poor, the unemployed will pay about 120 times more than these large corporations. Yet, the banks had profits of $5 billion last year, which was not the case of the unemployed.
Now that we are over the sigh of relief that followed the budget, we have to face reality. Several reforms will wait until after the referendum. Liberals are asking the people of Quebec to vote no. Yet, if we believe the recommendations of the C.D. Howe Institute, voting no means saying yes to hard times. The federal government is offloading its problems onto the provinces and there is no doubt that Quebec and Ontario are the hardest hit.
The deficit is still too high and the budget is doing nothing to deal with the debt. How is all this going to affect Canada's famous credit rating? There is still a lot of suspense regarding this budget, and we do not yet know its complete aftermath. Already, some of those who, at first, gave it the benefit of the doubt, are getting disillusioned. This budget does not stand up to a serious analysis. Tomorrow might be too late.
While we are waiting for the government's real agenda to be exposed, let us have a closer look at the Department of Canadian Heritage budget. Although the CRTC is holding hearings on the information highway, even though the department has already recognized the critical role of information in the economy of today and tomorrow, the budget makes further cuts in the so-called cultural industries.
Conservative and Liberal budgets come and go and are almost identical, but for the fact that Grit cuts are going to be more drastic that Tory cuts, without solving the issues of the deficit or the debt. Therefore, one must wonder who really benefits from this budget. Certainly not the CBC since, in spite of the stubborn denial on the part of the Canadian heritage minister, the announced cuts from parliamentary appropriations will indeed amount to $350 million over the next three years. We never saw the likes of this under the Conservatives who at least had the decency to keep up appearances.
Important cuts were made to Telefilm and the National Film Board which stand to lose $17 million in 1995-1996 alone, and that is over and above the more than $100 million they have lost since the Mazankowski reduction plan went under way.
The budget also indicates that the department intends to order a review of the mandate of these three agencies and to readjust their funding accordingly. Some people are concerned about this operation, and rightly so, given the importance of the presence of Quebec and Canada in this North-American sea of English.
The publishing industry will also be hard hit. For example, we expect over the next three years a 24 per cent cut in the mail subsidy program which is considered a direct subsidy to help Canadian magazines pay part of their mailing charges. These charges will now be offloaded onto the subscribers. So, for us, this will mean another indirect tax.
Indeed, following the program review process, Heritage Canada will lose over three years around $676 million, almost 25 per cent of its total budget. At this time, we have no further information on how these cuts will be made. We only have concerns.
We also know that some programs relating to our Canadian identity are doing fine. For example, lieutenant-governors will be awarded a pay increase next year. Why are these individuals not subject to the same rules as the rest of the public service, and members of Parliament and senators, whose wages have been frozen for three years?
Why are lieutenants-governors an exception to the rule?