Debates of April 3rd, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike the members opposite, Bill C-76 leaves me with a bitter taste. I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Finance does not realize the impact, for the country as a whole, of this bill designed to implement major changes, particularly as regards those transfers to the provinces which relate to social, health and post-secondary programs, and also to the Canada Assistance Plan. The mere mention of these programs makes you realize that the government means business.

Over the next three years, the Liberal government will cut $7 billion in the transfers to the provinces. What should Quebec expect? In 1995, the reductions in transfers to Quebec will be minimal, for the obvious reason that a referendum is expected this year. The government does not want to make waves in Quebec with this budget. However, when you see how generous the federal government is with Quebec, you realize that, day after day, it is implementing several strategies, instead of governing and creating jobs, as it promised to do. In fact, the Liberals were elected precisely because they promised to create jobs. But, right now, they are only interested in implementing their strategy. In 1996-97, however, things will change drastically; they will get much tougher for Quebec, which will have to make do with a $650 million shortfall.

It was recently said in Toronto that Canada had to make Quebecers suffer. That process has started. The government is starting to make Quebecers suffer with cuts in the transfers, and the process will continue until 1997-98. Quebecers are told that they will have to negotiate. How? Time will tell. Quebec has been trying to negotiate with this Parliament for decades, but we have never managed to agree.

Consequently, I fail to see why the federal government would want to renegotiate the issue of transfers to the provinces. The government willingly complies with the demands of the rich provinces, particularly Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Is the government considering splitting the resource envelope for the main transfers by using as a criterion the provinces' respective populations? If so, Quebec would have to absorb 41.7 per cent of the cuts to transfers. This would mean a shortfall of close to $2 billion for Quebec, between 1997 and 1998. The federal government is indeed deliberately trying to make Quebec suffer. What really hurts though is that it is Quebecers who do most of the damage, and I am thinking in particular of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Labour.

Transfer payments to the provinces are not a bonus. These are transfers of tax revenues paid for by the workers in each province.

When Quebec finally patriates the $30 billion in taxes that the people of Quebec pay the federal government every year, then we will have all the resources we need to govern ourselves.

As a result of the federal government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces between 1982 and 1993, taxes paid by Quebecers to the federal government increased 143 per cent. Meanwhile, federal transfer payments increased only 50 per cent.

As usual, these cuts will come down hardest on the most vulnerable members of our society. They will cut the federal government's share of financing for social programs, from 37.8 per cent to 28.5 per cent within four years. Is this just another way to hit Quebec? Cuts and more cuts, but they never refer to putting people back to work in this country. And working at well paid jobs, so they can work with dignity.

As a result of this budget, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area lost 285 jobs at the Canadian Forces base in Bagotville, although Quebec has only 13 per cent of Canada's defence infrastructure and staff. And it seems that an experimental farm in Normandin is either going to be closed down or lose a number of jobs. There is still a great deal of uncertainty among employees at Radio-Canada in Chicoutimi and at the National Film Board. However, it is common knowledge that this area was hit hard by the recession and unemployment. For several years, it has had the highest unemployment rate. I do not think my region and my riding will be able to overcome these problems if we stay within this system.

Do hon. members not realize that by putting the unemployed and welfare recipients back to work, we will increase tax revenues, and that these tax revenues will in the end help Canada out of its precarious financial position?

And by the way, as we put people back to work, there is another way to save a lot of money: eliminate duplication and overlap of services in many departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Human Resources Development, since the provinces already have similar departments.

I would say that 90 per cent of the people who come to see me at my riding office are at their wits' end. They are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, so they are on welfare. We have no way of helping them to get out of this morass. And I do not think that the bill before the House today is the answer to all these problems.

I think we should take the surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, give it to the provinces and let them select and conduct the courses and provide training that would be appropriate for these people. I am sure that everyone would benefit.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget for several reasons, one being I believe it addresses Canada's present needs and prepares us well for tomorrow's challenges.

The budget recognizes the need to remain within our fiscal parameters. It recognizes the fiscal realities with which we are faced and it reminds us that we as Canadians cherish certain fundamental values and principles.

The other reason is I have a number of comments to make.

In the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised the deficit would be reduced to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product by the end of the 1996-97 fiscal year. This required drastic measures. Canadians have told us that they do not want tax increases and that they want cuts in government spending.

I think this is what we have done. However, if government spending is to be cut, it means services have to be cut. I worry about this, even though the financial world is satisfied.

In nationwide budget consultations Canadians told us they wanted to be treated fairly and equitably. They wanted the government to reassess its priorities and they were prepared to undertake certain measures and see certain reforms if they were to pave the road and build the foundations for a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

Vancouver East is no different in this regard. In a series of meetings with my constituents, one message was recurrent. In defining the role of government and reviewing Canada's problems and Canada's delivery of services we should be fair and equitable. The residents of Vancouver East wanted to see by and large a fairer tax system. The budget improves tax fairness.

Large corporations are expected to make a larger contribution to help bring the deficit down. Both the large corporations tax rate and the corporate surtax were increased by 12.5 per cent. The capital tax on banks and similar large deposit taking institutions will also be temporarily increased, but we must do better. At the same time the government did not increase personal income tax for the second year in a row.

In an attempt to spread the cuts among Canadians, a lot of programs have been eliminated. This concerns me a lot. It concerns me particularly because women, immigrants, children and poor families need these programs.

Lots of families in my riding of Vancouver East are in crisis. Lots of children in my riding will not complete their education. They are caught in a cycle of poverty they cannot escape. These children need help with programs that provide encouragement. The announced cuts could have dire consequences.

The residents of Vancouver East told me they do not want an erosion of our social programs or the government to abandon its traditional role in preserving social programs.

I support the government's continued efforts to encourage and instil in individuals a greater sense of self-confidence and independence. The government recognizes the need to protect the weak and the needy, those who are unable to care for themselves. We recognize there can be new partnerships that can result in greater efficiencies and greater responsiveness.

The provinces will now have greater ability to design programs more suitable and appropriate rather than being bound by rigid rules. Nonetheless, there will continue to be national standards for the new Canada social transfers, and the provinces will be required to provide social assistance without imposing any minimum residency requirement.

Naturally the new system is not perfect. I fear that we will not be able to ensure all the provinces apply the programs uniformly, and, as a result, social programs could be seriously eroded.

However, if these measures are not taken, we could find ourselves, in a few years, completely without social programs. The change in transfers will come into effect next year. The federal government is currently negotiating changes with the provinces in the hopes that the provinces will administer the social programs better, because they are more attuned to the needs of their population. These changes represent cuts in transfer payments of $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98.

Despite these figures, the cuts to the provinces are not as deep as the cuts at the federal level. We have to work together to ensure that those who really need assistance are not abandoned.

As for immigration, we all know immigrants have played an important role in the building of our country and in the building of Vancouver East. Immigration has been a success story in Canada and doubtless Canada has benefited from the enormous contributions of immigrants to Canada. Immigrants have helped to build our nation and they will continue to help build our future.

Vancouver East is evidence of the outstanding contributions of immigrants and is home to a cross-section of numerous ethnic cultures. Vancouver East is a culturally diverse riding, with half of the riding being comprised of immigrants, the largest group being the Chinese. Less than one-third of the residents of Vancouver East were born in British Columbia, one of the lowest figures in B.C. We must continue to encourage immigration.

Many individuals have communicated to me that effective integration of newcomers is essential to their success. On the other hand, some have noted the substantial cost of the programs and the need for everyone to live up to their responsibilities.

A clear intention of the budget is to reduce the federal deficit. For the Department of Citizenship and Immigration this means re-examining its priorities. In the nationwide consultations conducted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration the public stated immigration, refugee and citizenship programs were valid and necessary for the development of Canada and that there was little room for cuts to expenditures.

More recently under both the budget and program review we have seen the implementation of cost saving measures and a shift in some of the cost burden from the taxpayer to those who benefit directly from our programs and services, including the introduction of a new right of landing fee set at $975 per adult over 19 years of age.

I greatly hope the new fee will be fair and equitable in its practical application, that it will not unduly restrict or even remotely discourage immigration to our country, however alluring and magnificent our country may be. Granted, the program provides a loan option for those individuals less equipped to meet the new fee. However, we must be flexible and we must be accommodating.

What if individuals come from deeply impoverished nations where opportunity of education is unavailable to all and where the skills and training required to function and be successful in our society are lacking? The loan option is said to be based on one's ability to repay the loan within a certain time period. How can these individuals without the necessary tools to acquire meaningful employment be realistically expected to repay the loans within a three-year period?

I hope the requirement to repay the loans will be relaxed under certain circumstances to allow individuals sufficient time to develop the skills and training to allow them to find employment or the means by which they might better be able to repay the loan while at the same time independently maintain a decent standard of living.

The last measure I would like to discuss is Canada's health care system. The principles set forth in our health act must be defended and maintained. They are: universality, comprehensiveness, flexibility, portability and public administration.

In the budget speech, we said, and I quote: "For this government, those are fundamental". We must continue to protect them, as they are. The government said it would abide by these principles and it will.

I believe my task is to make sure the poor do not become poorer but are helped to get out of poverty, that women can realize themselves and can be assisted in their endeavours, that immigrants continue to be accepted and respected, and that families be helped through difficult times and stressful situations. That is a mammoth task which can be tackled only if I can count on my constituents and on all Canadians. I am looking forward to working with them for a better future. I know they are willing to work with me.

Overall the budget is a success. We must be vigilant in our commitment to supporting the pillars of liberalism: freedom of the individual, equality of opportunity and compassion for those who have less. I am very committed to these fundamental principles and I know all of my colleagues are as well. Let us work together.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-76, the budget implementation act, which is intended to legislate into law certain aspects of the government's budget tabled in February. I would like to focus my remarks today on how this bill and budget impacts upon Canadians.

"Government really does know what is best for you, rather than what you know yourself", seems to be the message of this government. Where is its trust in Canadians? Where is its confidence in individuals, families and communities to make their own best choices? I will attempt to illustrate the reasons for my concerns in the next few moments.

I want to review the four principles the government put forward in its budget. First, the government says it must get its own fiscal house in order and focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes. Before this budget was presented, I heard Canadians say they were taxed to death. I heard Canadians say they wanted no new taxes. Well, guess what? In this budget the government gave them new tax.

The second principle is that the priorities of this country must reflect the needs of the people. Canadians need an economic plan that promotes jobs and growth. I do not think the government gets it yet, that government does not create real jobs; individuals create real jobs. The money left in the hands of taxpayers will create real and lasting jobs.

The third principle it put forward was frugality, that every tax dollar counts. I ask this government, does that include the tax dollars that are going to go toward your pensions? Does that make those tax dollars count, obscene pensions by this government?

The fourth principle is that we must be fair among regions and among Canadians. Again, I take that point. Is an illegal pension plan for MPs fair to Canadians?

I would like to add a fifth item to this list of principles, and I wish the principles had been followed. This principle is one to add. We affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals in society.

The Reform Party has recognized the importance of family as a principle since its very inception. The Reform Party has established a task force on the family, which I chair, that is developing policies that specifically address issues that directly affect the family. This government must shift its focus and seriously consider the impact of the policies, both in its budget and otherwise, and how they apply to the Canadian family.

First, I would like to take a look at the debt-deficit circumstances of our country. This government, as with previous governments, is pursuing a reckless fiscal policy that sees our national debt mushrooming to alarming proportions. The total national debt as of today, April 3, 1995, stands at $540 billion plus.

The government has not laid out its plans to achieve a balanced budget yet. It has only set a target of 3 per cent of GNP for a deficit to GNP ratio. This target is totally unrealistic and duplicitous. Our debt continues to grow with an ever present deficit. The government's own statistics in its budget documents show that since it has been in power the debt will mushroom to $508 billion in 1993-94 and to a projected $603 billion in 1996-97, all other things being equal, $100 billion more in debt within its mandate, and it considers this a wise budget.

The percentage of net public debt to GDP will increase from 71.4 per cent in 1993-94 to 73.4 per cent in 1996-97. World standards would say that is completely unacceptable. The interest payments on that debt have increased from $38 billion in 1993-94 to a projected amount of over $50 billion in 1996-97.

I go back to my original statement: What do these statistics mean to the Canadian family? First, it means Canadian families are overtaxed. They have less disposable income because of their high level of taxation, and that makes a virtual necessity for two income earners to support a household. This government is driving two parents out of the home to make a living.

As Statistics Canada recently reported, family income has actually declined in real terms since 1989; that is, from $56,000 to $52,000 in real 1993 dollars. That is a decline of 7.5 per cent from 1989 to 1993. Meanwhile, the number of dual income families has been forced to increase. The decline in family incomes from 1992-93 was 2.6 per cent alone. In the meantime, day care demands increased thanks to taxation and government policy.

The second thing these debt and deficit statistics mean is that money will not be available for social programs that Canadian families require.

The interest on the debt is consuming one-third of our tax dollars. This means that with increasing debt and added deficits, less and less money will be available to fund our needed social programs. The government claims to be protecting the interests of Canadians and their families. Yet even in this budget, under the new Canada social transfers, block transfers to the provinces will actually decrease from $26.9 billion in 1996-97 to $25 billion in 1997-98.

What is needed? A fiscal remedy is needed. The focus of government spending on need and relief for the Canadian taxpayer and family is needed. A whole new approach and focus is needed by this government. Canadian families and individuals must be empowered to create opportunities for themselves and for their future. The government must get off the backs of Canadians. This is the Reform Party's approach.

In February, before the government tabled its budget, our party released its taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget and provide social and economic security for the 21st century. This unprecedented action of presenting a budget before the federal budget combines both a remedy and relief.

First, this budget offers a clear solution for our fiscal problems and the debt-deficit crisis. This plan includes a balanced budget within the life of this Parliament. A balanced budget will result in a government that lives within its means.

How do we achieve this? With $10 billion in savings from government operations and $15 billion in affordable savings from targeted social programs. The government has not yet released its plan for achieving this vital goal, whereas Reform has, both during the election campaign and now.

It is interesting to note that in Reform's zero in three plan back in the election campaign, we predicted cutbacks of 30,000 in public service positions. This government at that time said absolutely nothing. Now it throws 45,000 public servants out of work and still keeps digging a bigger debt hole. That is not giving the full story to the Canadian people.

Reform, by contrast, reduces government spending honestly and realistically. At the same time, Reform offers a promise of empowerment for Canadian families. We define empowerment as the provision of better tools and increased opportunities for individuals, groups and provinces to improve their own social and economic security. This is relief.

How would Reform empower Canadians and Canadian families? First, the taxpayer protection act, to give the taxpayer a say in how government spends their hard-earned tax dollars. This would say first, that government spending and taxes would have to be balanced over the business cycle. Second, total government spending and taxes could not exceed a constant proportion of national income and could only be increased by extraordinary legislative means. Such an act would prevent the reoccurrence or continuation of our debt-deficit problem, which has plagued government for so many years. It could be somewhat like a taxpayers' rehab centre for a government addicted to overspending. It would force discipline upon the spending addictions of both government and its politicians.

Second, the empowerment of Canadian families would come through reform of our social security programs. Politicians have always worked with the premise that Canadians' personal security needs are best met by government. This has led to a centralized, bureaucratic, expensive system that is insensitive to individual needs. This has ignored both the ability and opportunity of many Canadians to help themselves and others.

Right now total spending on social programs in Canada exceeds $140 billion. That is $18,000 for every family of four in Canada. Reform would suggest that government programs may in fact be the worst way of providing for the social security needs of some of those Canadians.

We would like less government intervention in personal security. We have suggested the RPSP to put the future plans of Canadians in their own hands.

I would also like to see less government intervention in families, where, rather than a national day care program, government rewards and recognizes families for taking care of their own children. We need less, not more government. We need the empowerment of families, communities and local organizations.

Reform has a vision for building a new and better Canada. The security of Canada is not in government but in allowing wise choices to be made by families and individuals in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House of Commons today to speak on Bill C-76. This budget shows once again our commitment to consulting Canadians.

The Minister of Finance has delivered a fair and honest budget. It is a tough budget, some may argue, but the measures introduced are essential if we are to face economic realities and reach our fiscal targets.

For the second year in a row, the Liberal government has refused to reduce the deficit at the expense of the Canadian

taxpayer. This budget will allow us to meet our deficit reduction goals without increasing personal income taxes.

This budget illustrates the difficult choices that confronted us when we undertook to revamp federal programs in order to increase efficiency without compromising the priorities of Canadians.

The budget reflects the most thorough review of federal programs ever. Through program review, the government identified $16.9 billion in cuts to programs over the next three years, not including transfers to individuals and to the provinces.

Some additional highlights of this year's budget I would like to highlight are the reform of government programs and procedures to eliminate waste and abuse and ensure value for Canadian taxpayers. We have just completed the largest program review ever initiated.

The second is the move toward a fairer tax system, including tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts, R and D incentives, and higher taxes for corporations and large banks. For too long corporations have been more or less excluded from taxation. This is one step in the right direction in ensuring that everyone bears the burden of this deficit.

Another highlight is the delivery of a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy that includes a reduction in business subsidies by 60 per cent over three years from $3.8 billion in 1994-95 to $1.5 billion in 1997.

At this point I would like to focus the House's attention on one aspect of the budget that unfairly affects many Canadians of Greek origin as well as other veterans. That is the announced changes to the war veterans allowance program that would return this program to its original intent. As a result, the war veterans allowance and related benefits have been discontinued for former members of the resistance. Also, all allied veterans with post-war residency are required to reside in Canada six months out of the year if they wish to continue to receive these benefits.

These changes will affect approximately 2,895 former resistance members in the Montreal region of whom 90 per cent are Canadians of Greek origin.

On March 2, 1992 the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended to remove the right of applicants with service limited to a resistance group to qualify for benefits. However, existing domestic resistance service recipients were to be grandfathered if they maintained their residency in Canada. Moreover, foreign resistance recipients were required to return to Canada and resume residency within one year or risk losing their entitlement to war veterans benefits forever.

More specifically, section 6.1 provided grandfathering to those who qualified on or before March 2, 1992 and would continue for life if they remained residents in Canada. There were approximately 700 resistance claimants who returned to resume residency in Canada. For some this brought on certain hardships: separation from their families residing abroad, resettlement, isolation.

While Canada is the only country in the world to offer such an allowance to members of the resistance, the announced changes will bring on added hardships to all individuals who depend on this source of income.

Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the problem of transferring individuals between the ages of 60 and 65 from one social program to another. To date the government, through the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance, have shown sensitivity and understanding toward this problem, especially regarding those people who are not yet eligible for old age security.

Benefits were initially scheduled to be discontinued about three months after the budget was tabled. However through the interventions of myself and other members of Parliament we have been given the assurance these cuts will not go into effect until August 31, 1995.

I asked how much would the government really save by having a group of persons transferred from one social program to another, from war veterans allowance to welfare, or by having a group, the allied veterans, return to resume residence in Canada. There are about 740 in total living abroad. The average age of allied veterans is 75.

We must compare the social impact of such a move. Would we really save by having these people return to Canada and take advantage of our social programs including health care?

I consider the situation of these individuals as unjust and I made recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence on this issue, as have other members of the House.

There has been some concern that benefits are being paid out to persons who are no longer living. Therefore, I and other colleagues have made recommendations that individuals could register with the Canadian embassy in their respective countries.

I appreciate the government's interest in finding a just solution to this problem and thank the Minister of National Defence for agreeing to review this aspect of the program review in light of the difficulties these people will face in returning to Canada.

I will continue to work with many colleagues in the House, the Hellenic Canadian Congress, the veterans associations of the Hellenic community and other concerned parties to see the concerns of these individuals are addressed.

Canada has not forgotten the contributions these veterans made to the preservation of democracy during World War II. It is the only country to offer this type of allowance to former members of the resistance. I am proud that Canada offered this.

The issue of fraudulent claims has also been brought forward as a reason for terminating the allowance. While there may have been certain individuals who took advantage of the generosity in this program, the majority are deserving applicants. The government did not terminate the program because of the few individuals who took advantage of Canada's generosity.

Cost effectiveness was the reason this allowance was terminated. The targets will not be met when we consider the cost to be incurred once these individuals cross over to welfare.

Most significant in the budget is that it marks the beginning of a new era, a new way of managing the federation. It is a simpler, more efficient way that accords with provincial responsibilities to design and deliver key services. Many have seen this move as a move away from traditional Liberalism based on the principle of shared social responsibility.

Over the years successive Liberal governments have shown their commitment to this value through their actions. Many of the laws and policies they enacted remain the basis of our system of social support through which we pool our resources to create programs that benefit all Canadians and help sustain people through difficult times.

We are presently in difficult times. The test for our government will be to rise to the challenge and ensure the announced social program transfers will not jeopardize our standards of universal health care, unemployment insurance, old age security, the Canada assistance plan and the Canada pension plan.

These are part of the Liberal legacy and must remain in place if we are to continue to be the country that is the envy of the world. Poverty remains a growing problem for Canadian society as we try to overcome the economic challenges facing our country.

While the budget does not, as some members of the opposition would like to believe, make its cuts on the backs of our poor, their future must be brighter. Furthermore, the structure of the economy is changing. As a result the family structure is also undergoing changes. There have been enormous increases in single parent families and in families with both parents working and in families living in poverty, as is the case in my riding.

The failed economic and social policies of the Conservative government have left over 4.2 million Canadians living in poverty, of whom 1.2 million are children. Sixty-two per cent of families headed by single mothers are living in poverty with their incomes failing.

The Liberals made a commitment in the red book to work toward greater equality of social conditions among Canadians, to redistribute opportunity more broadly so that many more people have a decent standard of living and can build good lives for themselves and their families, allowing them to live with dignity and respect.

We must do everything we can to maintain our social programs at current levels despite expenditure cuts. Like all Canadians, we believe that we must strive to balance the budget. We will achieve this responsibly and realistically, without compromising the gains we have made over the last 16 months in the areas of job creation and economic growth, and without compromising the values and priorities of all Canadians and of the Liberal government.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, education, health and social assistance come under provincial jurisdiction. Over time, however, Ottawa has gradually encroached on these areas of provincial jurisdiction through its spending powers. The provinces must abide by these standards in order to receive federal funds. In seeking to enforce its national standards, the federal government was compelled to put in place a large public service, thus duplicating the provincial public service.

These expenditures, also known as overlap or duplication, are costing us roughly $1 billion a year at the Department of Health and $1.8 billion a year at the Department of Human Resources Development, at a time when there is so much whining about budget difficulties. Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, does exactly what its title indicates, that is, allow the government to implement certain measures announced in the finance minister's last budget.

It is crucial that all Quebecers understand this bill, which may appear daunting at first because it deals with financial management links between the federal government and the provinces. These realities are very far removed from our fellow citizens. Quebec men and women have better things to do at supper time than talk about equalization, established programs financing, or the Canada Assistance Plan. It is, however, essential to pay attention because these three programs alone represent transfers to the provinces in the order of $38 billion for 1995-96.

Federal contributions to these programs are falling dramatically and systematically from year to year. According to Quebec's Minister of Finance, "Between 1977 and 1994, the federal government's share of social program funding in Quebec for health, education and social assistance dropped from 47.6 per cent to 37.8 per cent. The finance minister's budget points to a

dramatic decline in the federal share, which would fall to 28.5 per cent by 1997-98".

It is essential that citizens pay attention to equalization, established programs financing and the Canada Assistance Plan, because it is there that the federal government is hiding a large part of its cuts. Some refer to this as the offloading of the federal deficit onto the provinces. These cuts will cost Quebec taxpayers close to $2 billion in 1997-98.

It is essential for the men and women of Quebec to understand how these programs work and the changes proposed today through Bill C-76, because this bill is the basic element of the federal proposal in the referendum debate.

Quebecers may have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs speak of renewed federalism before the budget was tabled. He travelled throughout Quebec saying, "You just wait and see, after the budget is tabled, we will talk about a new Canada". Others may have heard some federal spokespersons talk about decentralized federalism. The people must be told that these proposals are based on the bill before us today and that is why I urge them to pay particular attention to this bill.

The finance minister's budget wants to impose on us what we rejected in the 1992 referendum. Let us have a closer look at the federal government's proposal as compared to the sovereignty option offered by the Quebec government to its people.

To do so, we must understand how tax transfers are made between the federal government and the provinces. For social assistance, health and education, these transfers are made under three major programs.

The first one, the fiscal equalization program, is prescribed by the constitution. It is the program under which wealth is redistributed among the wealthier and poorer Canadian provinces. Quebec is now one of the poorer provinces. In 1982, the federal government capped the amount of equalization payments.

Last January-that is, January 1994-the Liberal government extended this cap for another five years with Bill C-3. By putting a cap on equalization payments, the federal government is defeating the very purpose of the program, which is to help bridge the gap between wealthier and poorer provinces. Since the equalization program was dealt with in another bill, namely Bill C-3, there is nothing about it in Bill C-76.

The second major program governing fiscal relations between the federal government and the provinces is called established programs financing (EPF). Through this program, the federal government provides financial assistance to the provinces in the areas of health and postsecondary education.

When the EPF was first introduced in 1977, federal transfers were supposed to be calculated on a per capita basis and indexed. But as the federal government sees its financial capability shrink away, it transfers less and less money.

The third major program is the Canada assistance plan, also known as CAP. This program governs federal transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance. In Quebec, the payments made under this program cover 50 per cent of social assistance costs.

What does Bill C-76 provide for regarding established programs financing and the Canada assistance plan? It calls for these programs to be abolished and replaced with a new program called Canadian social transfer. And the proposed changes would take effect in 1996-97.

The Canadian social transfer has two main characteristics. First, it will save the federal government some money. Indeed, the government is taking advantage of this change to substantially reduce its contribution to the new program. The second feature of the CST is the fact that, even if the federal government provides more limited financing, it reserves the right to impose standards and requirements to the provinces, as a condition to that financing.

In 1996-97, the first year of the new system, the federal government will contribute $2.5 billion less than what it is currently providing to the provinces through the programs which it is proposing to replace. In Quebec's case, this means a loss of $650 million. In 1997-98, the resource envelope for the provinces will be reduced by $4.5 billion, which could mean a $1.2-billion loss for Quebec.

All told, the federal government is reducing its current transfers to the provinces for health, social assistance and post-secondary programs by $7 billion. Moreover, it does so while introducing a new program called the Canada Social Transfer.

The government should at least say: "We have run out of money and are forced to stop contributing to the financing of these programs which, in any case, fall under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, we leave you with the responsibility of managing these programs". If the government did that, it would eliminate duplication and overlapping, and it would also save close to $3 billion in administrative costs. But that is much too simple and logical for this government.

The federal government would rather continue to raise our taxes, on gas, for instance, waste our money by duplicating provincial initiatives, among other things, and reduce by $7 billion, over the next two years, transfers to the provinces. This is what I call to dump the responsibility for the deficit on the provinces.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, beside the Rideau Canal there are some information panels from the National Archives. One panel shows the beautiful Parliament Buildings when they were first completed in 1866.

The text explains that when they were built, Centre Block, East Block and West Block were supposed to house not only this place and the other place but also the entire federal public service.

Clearly, successive governments have vastly inflated the federal role compared to its image at the time of Confederation. If a percentage of that increase of federal size was due to things like population growth, I would guess that same percentage of expansion of the federal government could readily be offset today by a full and thorough application of new technology. Personally, I am strongly opposed to having so much federal government with too many employees processing far too many forms and thinking up even more rules and regulations to tie up the private sector in red tape rather than producing real wealth.

How do we stop this expansion? One way would be to support the motion of the Bloc Quebecois to hoist Bill C-76 for six months, presumably leaving the federal government with no way to pay its bills. However, I regard that suggestion as very irresponsible and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. A much better way to downsize the federal government is to eliminate federal interference in areas which the Constitution clearly says fall under provincial jurisdiction.

As forestry critic for the Reform Party, I want to focus on the ending of federal moneys going to industry on a 50/50 cost shared basis with the provinces under the forestry resource development agreements, or FRDA. They expired in most provinces last week but have one more year in British Columbia and Quebec.

FRDA II in British Columbia had a five year budget originally set at $200 million, half from B.C. and half from the federal government. One way to judge the probable impact of FRDA II is to compare its budget to other spending on forest management activities in the province responsible for roughly half of Canada's forestry production.

This is according to the Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics for 1993, the national forestry database as published by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. On page 138 it shows a B.C. total of public funding spent on forest management including silviculture, protection, resource access and other management expenditures for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 of $1,518,956,000. Net expenditures by industry in B.C. for those same purposes across the same years was an additional $1,837,027,000.

In other words the $181 million which FRDA management committee correspondence indicates will be its total expenditure across five years must be compared to the $3,355,983,000 of total public and industrial spending for just three years. Clearly, the budget of FRDA II was only a tiny fraction of overall spending on management of B.C. forest lands.

According to the midterm evaluation of FRDA round two in B.C. by Deloitte & Touche: "The major impacts, which can be quantified during the agreement period, should come from the incremental silviculture investment projects. Approximately $100 million worth of these activities are planned over the five year agreement period".

Regarding overall program evaluation, Deloitte & Touche wrote on page 18 of the midterm evaluation: "The total net extra returns over costs and social return on investment or economic gain expected from these silviculture operations to June 30, 1993 is in the order of $46 million".

In other words, the major activities undertaken under FRDA II have produced an economic net gain rather than a cost to the public purse. Therefore, it should be no economic hardship for the provinces to take over these activities themselves. At the same time it frees the provinces from federal interference and frees private industry from federal-provincial overlap in this area which the Constitution clearly says comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 specifies the power of the provinces in the areas of "development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources" including "the rate of primary production therefrom". Nevertheless, because forestry is the number one industry in Canada and produces a significant part of the entire federal government revenue, the federal government has shoved its way into aspects which really should be provincial.

When I say forestry produces a significant part of the federal government revenue, I base that on a Price Waterhouse study published in May 1991 entitled: "The Forest Industry in British Columbia 1990".

Based on cubic metres of B.C. coast 1990 log harvest, the total of all taxes and payments per cubic metre was $69.19 including $1.44 for municipal government, $29.47 for the provincial government and $38.28 for the federal government for direct taxes, employee taxes and payments like UI and CPP. Although more than one-half of all government revenues per cubic metre went to the federal government, it is the province which bears the major costs of administering regulations for day to day forestry practices.

This example is according to a brief entitled "The Cost of Regulation in the B.C. Coastal Forest" prepared by the Council of Forest Industries of B.C. in September 1992 for the Vancouver region for 1990-91. The actual provincial costs of regulating the industry were: harvesting, $9.97 million; basic silviculture, $20.42 million; inventory, $1.2 million; integrated resource management, $2.7 million; research, $750,000; and administration, $22 million. The total is $57,065,000.

If my mathematics is correct, the province picks up the costs but the federal government's share of income received from the coastal crown allowable annual cut of 19.02 million cubic metres, which was the average of 1988-91 was $728,085,600. I remind my hon. colleagues, that is the federal take from only one B.C. region out of a total of 36 regions. This should provide ample federal funding for the international role on forestry as well as help the overall economy.

Of course, since this study was completed, the B.C. government has introduced a whole new program of forest regulations in an entire series of booklets which makes earlier regulations look like child's play.

Although many B.C. municipal councils have been writing to complain about the ending of the federal funding to FRDA II, I am also hearing from my constituents that they want a balanced federal budget as soon as it can be achieved without undue hardship for those truly in need.

Based on the figures I have mentioned today, I believe I have demonstrated that ending federal funding for FRDA should not have a significant impact on the forest industry, nor impose undue hardship, generally speaking. Moreover, by helping to get the federal government out of day to day forest management, ending federal funding to FRDA can help downsize our bloated federal bureaucracy. Since long term returns from FRDA activities are a net asset to the public purse rather than a liability, this is one way to downsize the federal government at no loss to the provinces.

Finally, last year's report by the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources said in recommendation number 11 that a possible third round of FRDA should go to "development of forest ecosystems and landscape management techniques and the continuation of financial assistance to private woodlot owners". Even the private woodlot owners in Nova Scotia when I visited there were complaining about the bureaucracy and overlap of FRDA and did not expect FRDA to continue.

In conclusion, I wish to oppose the BQ amendment to Bill C-76 on budget implementation. I give my support as the Reform forestry critic to federal downsizing in the realm of natural resources as demonstrated by the ending of the forest resource development agreements.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, the budget brought down by the government should be given points for public perception, and the federal government for improving its image. The impression is given that the government has hit hard. The impression is given that it has reduced the deficit and done everything it possibly could to turn Canada's economy around.

I heard a number of comments in this House that were extremely frustrating for me. One was that this budget was fair and equitable, hard but equitable.

According to the press clippings I read after the budget was tabled, those who complained loudest were the banks, who said it was a very harsh budget.

All the banks said that this government hit their profits very hard, including the president of the Royal Bank. Which means the government came down very hard. In fact, in the budget the banks were asked to contribute $50 million annually, but only for two years, which means a total of $100 million.

Consider that last year, the six chartered banks made a net profit of 4.3 billion dollars. I am talking about net profits, what the banks have left after covering all their expenses and salaries. These are net profits: pure profit. The banks raked in 4.3 billion dollars last year alone for their shareholders and owners.

When the government says in the budget that the banks will be asked to contribute $50 million for two years, this means barely 1 per cent of their net profits for last year. This is all part of a general trend we are seeing in a government that is probably following the example of its Conservative predecessors by supporting the wealthiest in our society. That is very obvious. In fact, not only is the banks' contribution towards paying off the debt extremely small, their taxes have been going down compared with the kind of profits they make. There are statistics and studies that show this very clearly.

I am, of course, referring to those who are among the wealthiest members of our society. The president of the Royal Bank, Mr. Taylor, pocketed over $2.5 million in salaries, bonuses and loans last year. The story is the same for other bank presidents.

Very clearly, this government favours the rich, and the rich are getting richer with this budget and the government's mentality. The proof lies in the fact that the government did nothing about family trusts, that it did not tighten corporation tax credits, and that even subsidies to Canadian business were reduced by only 60 per cent over three years. All this to say that the government has demonstrated its intention to protect the strongest and richest.

If we go to the other end of Canada's social map, we see this government's hard-heartedness, its immorality and its lack of a sense of justice in cutting $300 million in the public housing sector in its budget. Cutting three hundred million dollars in this sector means asking society's most vulnerable people to pay a share three times that of the banks. People who live in public housing earn an average of $10,161 a year-a very long way from Mr. Taylor of the Royal Bank, who earned $2.5 million last year.

In the public housing sector, the government has called for cuts of $100 million this year and the next three. This means that, since 1994, not a single cent has been spent on new housing construction.

Since January 1994, this government has put the key in the door, has not invested a cent in new housing projects even though the demand for low-rent housing has continued to increase. There are 80,000 homeless in Canada, the most beautiful and the best country in the world, as some members of this House would say. Yet this country has 80,000 homeless. Canada needs 600,000 new housing units. Yet not only has this government not invested a cent in new housing, it has cut $300 million from the social housing budget.

That is no longer cutting the fat. However, cutting $50 million is hardly even trimming the fat from the banking industry. Cutting $300 million for social housing is not trimming the fat, it is cutting to the bone with an axe. They are asking the most needy and vulnerable in society to cough up even more than the president of the Royal Bank of Canada. Is that what you would call a fair and just budget? I ask you, Madam Speaker. Not in my opinion. Any Liberal who rises in this House to say that it is is guilty of the greatest hypocrisy of all times, because there has never been a bigger need for social housing in the history of Canada, and it is a basic need.

A $300 million cut to social housing represents a 10 per cent cut in the annual operating budget of each low-rent building in Canada. That means that the window that lets in the cold will not get repaired this year. The roof will go unrepaired. That means that the building itself will continue to deteriorate.

[An hon. member]

It is being abandoned.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Indeed, we have abandoned this sector. That means that the standard of living of these people will go down. And who are these people earning an average of $10,161 per year? They are single-parent families, widows, seniors, and handicapped people. We are asking the most vulnerable people in society to make contributions that they cannot make. It will push these people further into squalor than they already are. Are these measures fair for Canadians?

I can accept, along with everybody else in the House, that real measures must be taken to reduce the deficit, but not at the expense of the most needy, the most vulnerable. In its budget, the government directly attacks, head on, blindly, the families and individuals who are the weakest and most vulnerable in society, and hits their essential needs. It is like saying to the weakest, infants, babies, children, that they will have to eat less. It is like taking away from these people their ability to meet their most basic needs.

It is unfair. I am for debt reduction, but why did the government not take the $300 million from the banks in its budget?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for Chateauguay-MIL Davie Shipyard; the hon. member for Don Valley North-Human Rights.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-76, the budget implementation act.

I have been here all day listening to the speeches of my hon. colleagues. I get an uncanny feeling that we are seeing the results of the Peter Pan school of economics at work. You remember Peter Pan, Madam Speaker. He was the person who said: "If you really believe you can fly, you will fly". What I am hearing from countless members is that if we cut deeper, if we lay off public servants and if we dismantle all kinds of social and economic programs, watch Canada prosper. That requires an awful lot of faith in something.

I see across the aisle my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. He was one of the few government members who had the courage to say that the kind of programs that decade after decade of parliamentarians on behalf of Canadians have struggled to build are being dismantled in a matter of hours by the government.

It is no mistake that Canada is the number one country in the world in which to live and raise families. However, the reason for that is the whole set of very progressive social programs that the government is in the process of dismantling as quickly as possible.

Today reminds me of a story I read when I was a kid. I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who wrote The Wreckers . This book was about a group of people who lived on an island in the South Pacific. On one side of the island was a rocky shoal out in the

surf. At night they would often put lanterns out on the rocks to give the impression to passing ships that it was the harbour entrance. As the ships entered this so-called harbour, which in fact was a shoal of rocks, the ship smashed up into pieces and these unscrupulous pirates and others went out and looted the ships. They misrepresented the harbour entrance.

I have a feeling this is what we are doing here. I cannot believe what I am hearing my colleagues say. For example, I heard a number of my Liberal friends say that the red book set out a whole number of promises and they have kept them. I remember the red book stating: "This NAFTA deal with the United States and Mexico is not good for our businesses and our working people and we will dismantle this program unless massive changes occur". There were virtually no changes at all. Now the Prime Minister has not only signed us into NAFTA, he is trying to sign us into an extension of NAFTA with countries like Chile and others. It was one of the major commitments that was made to the Canadian people and was the basis on which they gave the Liberals their support.

The other crucial one was the GST. I remember my Liberal opponent in Kamloops saying: "If you elect me as a Liberal representative we promise to abolish the GST". As a matter of fact, the deputy leader said: "If that GST is not abolished I will resign my seat because I am so committed to doing this". Here we are, 18 months into the Liberal term of office, and nary a whisper about the GST's abandonment. As a matter of fact they did suggest we change the name. Maybe that was their version of abolishment, to abolish the name of the GST because we are sick of it.

Those were two major promises given to the electorate. Another one was child care. I remember the hon. member from Winnipeg on countless occasions standing up in the House of Commons saying that child care was crucial to the economic development of the country's future. With increasing single parent families and two spouses in the workplace, child care is not a luxury or a social program, it is critical to economic development. Was there even one mention of child care in the budget? Nary a mention. When I put the question to the Minister of Human Resources Development he said: "We will be working on that as long as all of the provinces agree". I can predict the outcome of that.

Then the environment was going to be a priority. That was critical because we all agreed that all of these other programs were essentially irrelevant unless we really came together and worked hard to preserve the quality of the Canadian environment. What have we done? Wait and see. I bet that in a matter of weeks we will be dismantling the environment department. It has been virtually gutted of any consequence, therefore we might just as well toss it out. I can see that announcement coming.

I could go on and on about broken promises but I think they are well known and I do not have to keep it up.

However, government members have been saying: "We had a balanced, just and fair approach". Fair for what? I remember my friends opposite giving a standing ovation to the Minister of Finance on budget day. I will read from the budget: "First, the existing large corporations tax will be increased by 12.5 per cent effective immediately in order that big companies contribute more to help bring the deficit down". People rose to their feet and applauded because the Liberals were getting tough on the big companies, on capital.

Let us look closely at that. The capital tax is 0.2 per cent. It is going to skyrocket from 0.2 per cent to 0.22 per cent. Now 0.22 per cent is an increase of 12.5 per cent, but it is infinitesimal. It is virtually meaningless. You can imagine the big corporations snickering when they heard that. However, the impression was that there was balance because the government was hitting big corporations hard.

The government also said in the budget it would take on the banks. The government imposed a temporary tax for one year. What does that mean, a temporary tax for one year? Nobody in the House would dare to stand and suggest that the banks were getting a tough ride, so the government said that it would get tough and impose a temporary tax which would only last one year.

Where is the balance? I do not think there is a single person who would not admit that the victims of the recession are the hardest pressed today. Where are the major cuts coming? The major cuts are coming from training programs, educational programs, health care programs and all social service programs. Who benefits from those programs the most but the victims of the recession, the unemployed and the poor people of the country. Those are the people who the government is hitting. A little tap on the nose for the big corporations, a little tap on the head for the big banks, and everyone else will get whacked.

We have a deficit problem. We have a serious debt problem. However, let us ask the question. What was it that caused the debt? How did we get into this bloody mess? We have to go no further than to ask Statistics Canada. In 1991 Statistics Canada conducted a major study into the cause of the debt. The study indicated that our $560 billion debt was caused by three items.

Fifty per cent of the debt is the result of compound interest, in other words, monetary policy. The government set a certain monetary policy which we heard about the other day when it became clear that the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada had entered into a sweetheart deal. The Minister of Finance promised that he would not allow inflation to rise above 3 per cent. He said he would do anything to keep it down, which meant high interest rates. Today we have one of

the highest interest rates in the industrialized world. Fifty per cent of our accumulated debt is the result of that.

Forty-four per cent of our accumulated debt is the result of tax exemptions. There are all sorts of tax exemptions, tax programs, tax loopholes, et cetera. $38 billion a year is lost through that sieve. Again, $38 billion has not been collected as the result of a whole set of tax breaks. I am not going to suggest for a moment that none of them are any good. However, virtually none of them do the things that we want them to do. Forty-four per cent of our accumulated debt comes from tax breaks.

Let me ask my Liberal colleagues across the way if they really support the notion that escort services should be a legitimate tax deduction. If they do not they should stand up and say it. Do they really believe that luxury boxes should be written off as a tax exemption? If they really do not believe that they should stand up and criticize these things. There are huge holes in the tax system which allow $38 billion to remain uncollected year after year.

Now we come to the crunch. Six per cent of the government's accumulated debt since the mid-1970s is as a result of government programs like the armed forces, the RCMP, health care, pensions, et cetera. If we only look at social programs it comes to 2 per cent. What did the government do? It focused on the 2 per cent that caused the debt as opposed to the other 98 per cent.

The government has actually got it reversed. Rather than dealing with monetary policy and tax reform, it decided to take on those who have been victimized by the recession. I say to my Liberal friends: Shame on you. To my Reform friends I say: Double shame.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. I guess one could call this an omnibus bill because it deals with measures regarding the public service, health and social transfers, fiscal stabilization, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, veterans, securities, fees for passports, the Atlantic freight assistance program and the Western Grain Transportation Act. That is quite a handful all wrapped up in one bill.

While I have some serious concerns about many of these measures, today I am going to focus on only three of these areas. Being a westerner from Alberta and representing farmers in my constituency, the Western Grain Transportation Act of course comes under serious scrutiny.

The Reform Party has always supported the elimination of subsidies, but we do not see any particular reason why the farming community should be singled out for elimination of all the subsidies in their particular area when everyone else can continue on at the public trough, collecting billions and billions of dollars.

We are seeing the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies eliminated. That of course raises serious concerns for the grain farmers in the western part of the country.

The Minister of Finance in the budget said that there will be a one-time payment of $1.6 billion to the owners of prairie farmland. While I can appreciate that many farmers rent their land from landowners, it seems rather strange to me that the landowner would be the recipient of a subsidy based on the production of the land when it is the farmer who does the farming who incurs all the costs of growing the grain, fertilizing it, harvesting it, storing it, shipping it. He bears all the risk, yet the $1.6 billion is going to the owners.

It is an unfair way of phasing out this subsidy, one, because farmers are being singled out for the elimination of the subsidy, and two, because this money is going to the landowners and not the farmers themselves.

In my riding we have an alfalfa plant, which has also been a recipient of the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies. Alfalfa may not be a household name or a product that everyone buys, but they do produce 850,000 tonnes of alfalfa pellets and cubes valued at more than $100 million. Over 90 per cent of their production is exported. The elimination of this subsidy is going to have a devastating effect on this particular industry in my riding.

Alfalfa pellets are a high volume, lower value product than grain. Therefore, the transportation costs make up a much higher percentage of the total cost of the product when it is landed in a foreign country such as Japan, which is one of the major importers of Alberta alfalfa. The elimination of this subsidy is going to have a devastating effect.

Last week we legislated back to work the workers on the railroads. If we thought the elimination of this subsidy was tied to or coupled with the increase in productivity on the railroads, then we would be able to keep the transportation costs under control. I do feel that the alfalfa plant in my riding is going to be particularly hard hit by these measures without offsetting help in some other area through, as I mentioned, increased productivity in the railroads.

Canada as a whole of course is going to suffer. Here is $100 million in export sales that is in jeopardy; there are 1,000 jobs in jeopardy. I think the minister of agriculture should take these things into serious consideration and perhaps make some representations to the Minister of Finance regarding what should happen to the alfalfa industry in western Canada.

In the area of the public service, Bill C-76 implements some changes to the workforce adjustment directive. These changes allow the President of the Treasury Board to declare 45,000 public servants a surplus commodity. As Reformers we have a very deep and real concern for the civil servants and their families who are going to be losing their jobs through the workforce adjustment directive.

Since the election we have talked about the need to get the cost of government under control, that downsizing has to be done. We realize that is important. But we must also remember that the Liberals are the ones who said: "We are not going to touch the workforce adjustment directive; we are going to leave it where it its".

In July 1994, in a letter to the Professional Institute of the Public Service, the President of the Treasury Board stated that the workforce adjustment directive will only be changed through negotiations. I do not think Bill C-76 is negotiating with the public service. This is a big, heavy hammer that is going to say that for the next three years the workforce adjustment directive is set aside and we are going to eliminate 45,000 civil service jobs.

If this is the way the Liberal government negotiates and the way it has handled the economy, the deficit and the debt and when it says one thing and does the opposite, we will have no idea where this country is going. The litany of broken promises made in the red book gets longer and longer every day.

The workforce adjustment directive is only being set aside for three years. I was wondering how the government can honestly say that government downsizing does not require the elimination of the directive altogether. Is this just another empty promise of the Liberal government when first it said: "We are not going to touch it," and now it is saying: "We are going to set it aside but only for three years"? Let us hope that in three years it is not in a position to express an opinion on the workforce directive because it is likely that in three years it will find another reason to set it aside for a longer period of time.

I think this government should do its homework and should come to realize that government should be fundamentally changed and downsized. It should come clean with the public service and honestly say that the directive may have to be eliminated and not suspended.

These short term politically expedient measures with the previous Tory government bought labour peace through granting job security. I think we are seeing another situation where the government says one thing and the long term policy may be quite different.

The government is allowing these people who are declared surplus to stay on the job for six months, with or without work. Then, for 12 additional months after they are gone, if a job is found they can be brought back without putting the jobs out to competition.

We are seeing all kinds of ways that the Liberal government is waving the wrong flag.

We are debating employment equity, where the merit principle is thrown out the window. Now they are saying they are going to reserve the right to bring workers back within 12 months and eliminate the competition for jobs. All these things say that fairness is being flouted and that the Liberals are governing without any real sense of direction as to how to set an example in this country.

In the short time I have left I would also like to register my opposition to the elimination of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. It is patently unfair to Alberta because it will bear the brunt of this at $173 million in additional costs to the utility services. It is going to add 7 per cent to the price of electricity in Alberta. In Alberta the utilities are privately owned and they now have to pay federal income tax. But Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro, B.C. Hydro, and all these other crown corporations of provincial governments are exempt from federal tax.

Therefore, I would like to be on record as opposing that particular item in Bill C-76.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995. I had the honour to second the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, last Thursday, March 30, 1995.

The purpose of this motion is to send the finance minister back to the drawing board to redo the budget he dared table in the House, which the Bloc Quebecois is doing its utmost to denounce. I am proud to have seconded this motion because the finance minister's budget hides its true nature and claims merits it does not have.

For the 1995-96 fiscal year, the budget does not introduce any changes as far as transfers to the provinces are concerned. Everything is being postponed until next year so that Quebecers will not find out before the referendum that federalism is a failure. However, starting in 1996-97, the federal government will arrange to shift its deficit to the provinces to the tune of at least $7 billion.

This is how the government will go about it. First, it will eliminate two major programs under which funds are transferred to the provinces, namely the Canada Assistance Plan and established programs financing, replacing them with a new program called the Canada Social Transfer. This new program, the Canada Social Transfer, will have to take into account the cuts announced in the finance minister's budget. These cuts will amount to $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98

for a total of $7 billion. The amount of these cuts are in the budget.

By reducing transfer payments to the provinces this way, the federal government is transferring its public finance load onto the provinces while at the same time keeping the related tax points and the spending power in every area. In spite of all the good things promised in the budget, clause 48 of Bill C-76 is unmistakably clear; under this clause, Quebec will be deprived of $650 million in 1996-97.

In 1997-98, the budget for the new program, the Canada transfer program, will be divided among the provinces based on a criterion that remains to be negotiated. If the criterion ultimately chosen is the one currently in use, this would mean a $1.2 billion shortfall for Quebec in 1997-98. It could even be steeper, because no decision was made yet regarding on what basis calculations will be made.

In fact, the federal government seems to grant the requests of wealthier provinces, notably Ontario. Equalization aside, the government is seriously considering distributing all major transfers to the provinces on a per capita basis. If that were the case, Quebec alone would have to bear 41.7 per cent of the cuts in transfer payments in 1997-98 on account of its population. Therefore, Quebec would see its shortfall for 1997-98 increase from $1.2 billion to $1.9 billion.

This goes to show that this budget claims to have merits it does not have, as glaringly evidenced by the cuts to be expected next year. Another clear indication is the government's commitment to maintaining national standards. Bill C-76 maintains health national standards and provides for the introduction of new national standards for social assistance and post-secondary education.

Federal support will be withheld if the provinces do not comply with these standards. This centralizing and arrogant form of federalism has nothing to do with decentralization. These national standards will limit the provinces' autonomy in their own fields of jurisdiction, at their own expense. Again, the new standards which will be implemented coast to coast will not serve the interests of Quebec's distinct society, particularly in a sector as vital as education.

The bill provides for new national standards before negotiations have even taken place. The federal government is announcing the outcome of such negotiations before they are even underway. There is nothing in this legislation to indicate that the federal government needs a consensus among the provinces to implement new national standards. Let us not forget that the federal government has the authority to unilaterally impose such standards through legislative amendments. If the provinces reject these standards, they will lose federal support, which, ironically, is provided with the money collected from provincial taxpayers.

Therefore, the new Canada Social Transfer will impose a $7-billion cut to the provinces. In addition to that, clause 48 of Bill C-76 provides that a province must make mention of the Canada Social Transfer in all its advertising and documents related to the health services provided by that province.

Let me give you another example: As the critic for Veterans Affairs Canada, I noticed that Bill C-76 seeks to reduce benefits, allowances and compensation. Clause 42 provides for the gradual elimination of education assistance to children of deceased veterans.

Clauses 68 to 72 eliminate allowances to allied veterans in the Resistance, as well as allowances to uniformed allied veterans who immigrated to Canada. Finally, clause 73 provides that any compensation paid to a veteran attending a review committee hearing of his application for disability pension will be eliminated. These provisions amount to a loss of benefits for veterans. This is a case of penny-pinching.

In short, this budget truly reflects what federalism is all about. The federal government would like to be perceived as the almighty protector and authority. But Quebecers will not be fooled and they will not hesitate to express their dissatisfaction with this system and say that the trickery is over and that they are prepared to take control of their destiny once and for all. In the meantime, it is essential to postpone second reading of Bill C-76 for six months, to give an opportunity to the Minister of Finance to do his homework. This is the purpose of the motion which I seconded and which I still support.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-76.

A lot of misinformation has gone on recently with respect to the budget. I would like to correct some of those statements.

The budget is going to sound the death knell for many things we hold dear to our hearts as Canadians, in particular the social programs of the country we have spent so many years and decades forming. These social programs have set us apart from countries like the United States; set us apart from countries that do not take care of those who are underprivileged in society as we in Canada have done much to the envy of people in other countries.

Contrary to what many people believe, the budget poses the single greatest threat to those social programs. It is not something we should be proud of, but rather ashamed of. I will explain why.

The big ogre in all of these talks about budget and finances is not the deficit. The big ogre in this is the debt, that huge expanding volume, almost impossible for us to comprehend, now at about $560 billion and three years from now will be about $660 billion.

Where will we get the money to pay even the interest on this? I will show the House. Imagine what we spend every year to be a pie. That pie would be circular and would represent $160 billion. Of that pie, $40 billion goes to pay the interest on the debt. The $120 billion remaining goes to pay for government programs and social programs.

Three years from now with an added $100 billion to the debt we will see interest rates on the debt at $50 billion, not $40 billion. That will force our country to decrease its spending on government programs and social programs from $120 billion to $102 billion.

I ask the people of the country to ask themselves where we will get the money to pay for those social programs if we will have $18 billion less to deal with. There are two options. Either we have increased growth in the economy, which should occur to some extent, or raise taxes. The latter is not an option but will be something the government and provincial governments will be forced to do to pay for the programs we have come to enjoy. If we do not we will have to decrease services in important areas like health care and education. These are very important programs we have come to enjoy.

I will give some real time examples of the first option, one very close to my heart. Here are some facts about health care in British Columbia. Prince George, a city in northern British Columbia which actually serves one-half of the province, has lost 80 per cent of its orthopedic surgeons. That leaves one left to serve one-half of the province. It has lost 50 per cent of its obstetricians and gynecologists and its only neurosurgeon, among other specialists.

Why have these people left in the last year and a half? Not because they want to get more money but rather they found it intolerable to work under the fiscal restraints imposed on them not only by the province but by the federal government. There is dual culpability in this situation. It is not held by one arm of the government or the other.

The reason is twofold. We have increasing demand for health care services and more expensive technologies and we have less money to pay for them. We also have an expanding and aging population. As we look into the future, if we look at the demographics of the population in the country, we can see that situation will not change for the better but rather for the worse. Those demands will increase.

Some tragic situations have occurred in northern British Columbia. People have to be flown out of that hospital. Doctors working there have to find spots in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver for people to be treated, people sometimes with life threatening injuries, people whose injuries are being treated too late for them to get the adequate treatment required to survive and to come back to functional normality. In a rich country like ours that is an embarrassment and a crying shame. All we need to do is speak to those people to see what happens.

What happens in northern British Columbia is not isolated. This also happens in Victoria. A colleague called me and said he has a 40-year old patient. She is getting vertigo, which means the room spins. They think she has a tumour in her brain stem, part of her brain. She will wait two months to get her CAT-scan and her MRI scan is booked on the 12th of never.

Madam Speaker, if you were that lady, what would you think? What a tragedy to have that happen in our country. If she had enough money she would go to the United States and get these services done in a matter of two or three weeks. That is a two-tier system; a health care system which we have right now, contrary to what government members say.

On one hand the government says it will take money away from Canadians under the guise of cutting, that is remove $8.4 billion from provincial transfer payments, and it will bring down the federal deficit. That is simply not true. All the government is doing is putting the onus back on to the taxpayers and the provinces. It is not fair.

I suggest a constructive alternative solution. It requires a change in philosophy, an openness of mind and a desire to change things for the future. It is a leap of faith which would provide a better health care system for all Canadians.

Let the federal government take it upon itself to define the essential health care services and ensure all Canadians, regardless of income, are covered. Nobody in this party wants to see anybody have any part of their essential health care services withheld because they cannot pay for them. That is something we are fighting against and it is something we will continue to fight against in the future. We want to ensure that every Canadian is covered by these essential services. However, we cannot go on expecting public health care to pay for everything in existence. It simply cannot do that. Therefore let us define those services and ensure they are covered across the country.

Let us give the provinces the power to raise money to pay for their health care services. That would entail amending the Canada Health Act. It would not destroy it, it would amend it.

There are many good aspects to the Canada Health Act the Reform Party wants to preserve.

However, the government cannot on one hand take money away from the provinces and on the other hand tell them they cannot raise funds. That is not fair. Let us enable them to raise funds. That would perhaps provide for a two-tier system in which there is a private system and a public system.

We must understand the federal government can take the responsibility and say to the provinces that if they have a private health care system only private moneys would be exchanged. Not a penny of taxpayers dollars would go into that private system. It is a fallacy to assume we in this party want to have taxpayers money going into a private system.

It would enable the public system to have decreased waiting lists and it would also provide more money for the public system. Some would choose to use the private system. The bottom line is that people on the public system would receive their essential health care services in a more timely, more expeditious and more efficient fashion.

This is an unequal system but we have an unequal system now. Is it not better to have an unequal system which provides better health care for all Canadians than to have the present system which will worsen as time goes on? The Canadian public, when it understands that, would agree. We in this party would support the government if it would take the initiative and do that. To stick its head in the sand and say nothing is wrong is completely untrue.

The provincial government in British Columbia was forced to implement a stop gap measure of $18 million just to lower the MRI waiting list and the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting. Those lists have 700 or 800 names. If a person is waiting for open heart surgery, I am sure they would find it extremely disconcerting to find out they have to wait five months. Senator Keon mentioned the waiting list for non-emergency heart surgery in Ottawa is now five months. That is a travesty.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, the great national party and defender of the most vulnerable, the party that used to lean more towards the NDP than towards the Reform Party, the party that was so full of the words pride and dignity is no more. It has caved in to repeated attacks from the wealthy and the financial community who just happen to be friends of the party.

Yesterday's Liberal Party has turned into a kind of progressive conservative reform party. That is what we can call that party now, whose members sit across the way. With this latest budget, the members opposite, these progressive conservative reform members, have abandoned their basic principles. The vulnerable, the sick, people in substandard housing, the unemployed and the elderly, all these people who need the government's special attention, have been abandoned in the name of deficit reduction.

The message from the government benches sounds hollow. It is also less than forthright, because it would have the public believe that all these vulnerable people and our social programs are to blame for the fact that the federal government is bankrupt. This is a misrepresentation of the facts, and it is unacceptable. By sending this kind of message, members opposite, which I can no longer call Liberals or "Rouges", are questioning the very role of government.

Is this role not supposed to be to help the weakest in our society, to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living, that our collective wealth is distributed equitably and that those who have a measure of wealth should participate in this collective effort? Is this not the government's mandate?

Unfortunately, members opposite, those former Liberals with their millionaire Minister of Finance, are stupidly caught up in a one-track economic and financial mind set, totally oblivious to social principles and human values. Pretty soon, if we replace the Minister of Finance with a calculator, no one will notice the difference. The government will add and subtract without considering the disastrous impacts of these cuts.

The Minister of Finance of this new progressive conservative reform party represents the exact opposite of Robin Hood. Instead of taking money from the rich to give to the poor, the Minister of Finance takes money from the poor to give to the rich.

Could we expect anything else from a failed Robin Hood who is himself a millionaire and who admitted that he was familiar with the whole range of tax exemptions? He even owns a fleet of ships, some of which fly flags of convenience to avoid Canadian taxes. What a wonderful example of sharing and participating in our collective responsibilities! He prefers to protect his wealthy friends at the expense of those who are less well off.

I am thinking of those notorious family trusts-billions of dollars sheltered from the tax man. In this case, the minister decided to protect his friends for another five years. I think it is shocking to protect The Cadillac crowd and cut benefits to the unemployed.

What about the government's fiscal options? For instance, the banks are taxed a modest $100 million while the Royal Bank alone, a good federalist, made more than $1.2 billion worth of profit last year. How do you justify this fiscal decision, when last year, taxes paid by seniors increased by $500 million?

What about the thousands of businesses that pay no tax, while workers just keep paying more?

The choice of the members opposite is clear in this budget. Their preference for the rich is obvious. The federal government is the protector of the well-to-do and the financial community.

In the end, it is the lower and medium income taxpayers, always the same, who are affected. The unemployed, the disadvantaged, the sick and the homeless are paying for this budget, in which the government lacks the courage to reach into the impenetrable pockets of the more well off. This budget will mean real hardship: lower UI benefits, fewer assistance programs and shrinking health insurance.

Seniors are given a break, this year. However, it is not hard to guess the intentions of the Minister of Finance.

Following the referendum, he will once again go after old age pensions and cut seniors' income, which in many instances, is the bare minimum. Our seniors are entitled to reasonable living conditions. They are also entitled to certain small pleasures.

When the minister's axe falls next year, I fear these small pleasures will disappear, and their quality of life will decline. Women will be hit even harder by the federal government's choices. The concept of family income to be included in various programs affects them directly, because they are the least well off and the most dependent on their partners. By a single stroke, program universality will end for many women, who will thus be condemned to continued economic dependence and poverty. It is a real scandal.

The fact is that the disadvantaged and the middle class are getting poorer. The other fact is that the rich are getting richer. And the government is biting into these facts with gusto-it is broadening the gap between the poor and the rich with its budget and tax choices. What shameful choices.

The budget of the millionaire of finance is just for show. A series of cuts here and there, cuts without vision. And the members opposite are all pleased and smug about this ineffective budget, designed solely to provide a short term response to financial markets. For over 17 months now, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to do its work seriously. The Bloc demands that the government get to the real root of the problem: duplication and deep, structural unemployment.

The Finance millionaire ignores these two issues. But, remember the credo of the red book, the bible that was shelved immediately following the election: jobs, jobs, jobs. Where are all of the jobs so promised, which were supposed to kick-start economic recovery? Obviously, the opposite has happened. Economic recovery is creating jobs, jobs, jobs, not government action. Inaction is more like it.

Nice election promises will not fight poverty. One of the best ways of doing it is to give people the opportunity to acquire a certain wealth through employment. That is a solution seriously worth considering.

Work, employment combat poverty. Where are those major and effective job-creating measures? Nowhere to be seen. The federal government's infrastructure program distributed mere crumbs, and, now, the government is idling. The people opposite are bragging about jobs that were not created by them, but by the economic recovery which, for the most part, was powered by our neighbours to the south.

The federal government does not want to recant. The system is made that way and the faith that the people opposite have in their system is as tough as nails. The decentralization that they say they are going to implement in the budget is an empty shell, a cover for a vast offloading operation onto the provinces. In fact, it is the deficit that is being decentralized, not powers.

Still, before the budget, the carrot they dangled was the possibility of the federal government withdrawing from provincial areas of jurisdiction and transferring to the provinces the corresponding financial resources. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. The budget does the opposite: it perpetuates a domineering central government and ten subservient provinces.

Quebecers will soon make a decision on their future. I am convinced that they will reject this domineering federalism and this government which is eating away at the social fabric to please financiers.

Quebec needs all of the tools available if it wants to build a fairer society based on something other than purely pecuniary values. Globalization of markets, international competition, profits, economic development at any price are all well and good. But, what use are they if the population is abused and neglected? Quebecers will make their own choices.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on this bill.

During the last couple of months since the bringing down of the budget, I have been a little disappointed at many of the things I have heard. Members on the government side have talked about the number of occasions they have gone into the communities and towns throughout Canada and have talked to people at various gatherings and now government has a clear understanding of what Canadians want. Government then comes down with what it did and the rhetoric begins.

I find it strange because I too have been out to various areas, not just in my own riding but throughout the country. Maybe I operate a little differently than government members do but my conversations are with farmers while sitting on the tailgate of a pick-up truck or with a policeman while riding around in his cruiser. I do that rather than sitting with top bureaucrats or other elites.

When I go into a prison I do not spend my time in the warden's office. I get to the grassroots population, the guards and people who work closely with the inmates. I go to the coffee shops and meet with nurses coming off shift from the hospital. I sit down and listen to what they have to say. Government members say they have conferred with people but I would like to know why they did not get the same message I got.

People ask such questions as: "What are they doing? We do not quite understand. Why will they not accept the idea that the pension is gold plated and at least be willing to say that they should do their part?" When we look at the figure of $1,239,000 going to this gold plated pension plan, we sit over here and complain. They do not have the guts to stand up and say that yes, they should do their part but they do not.

I have pulled some figures out of the public accounts and if I can pull these out of public accounts, anybody can. People should be told that the public accounts indicate that last year this government spent $374 million on language instruction. In the immigration and citizenship section the figure is $298 million. People would like to know what that is all about.

The funny part is that when we get into multiculturalism we see these big million dollar figures. Most of the people I talked to are immigrants and they asked: "What are they doing? Why are they spending their money on these things? They are nice but at the same time our health programs are going down the tube. Education is going down the tube. Protection is going down the tube and even defence which is important is being cut and going down the tube".

There is welfare out there for the needy. In a pig's eye, it is for the greedy. There are single mothers who ask: "Why can I not get some help? I am single. I have kids. I am divorced and having problems. Why can I not have some help?" I do not know the answer.

All you people on that side do is chatter. You do not give answers to anybody. You play the old political, yap, yap, yap, blah, blah, blah and say nothing. You have been doing that for 30 years. Now we wonder why we have a $560 billion debt and this huge deficit every year?

People tell me they do not understand. I tell them: Come and listen to the Liberals and you will understand. That is the way they have been operating for 30 years. They will not even give up their little blue cars. On occasion a minister might walk or take the green bus like the rest of us. But no, leave the cars sitting out front with a driver. Let the engines run, it does not matter. Then they walk in here and talk about the millions of kids who are living in poverty, while their cars are running and their chauffeurs are waiting. That is what they do. There is no sign whatsoever that they are interested in giving up anything that would help. A selfish lot right from day one.

We talked to the people and we came up with a taxpayers' budget. They say we have priorities and why do the Liberals not have priorities. This is what the people are saying. Obviously their budget does not match what people are saying. Three per cent of GDP means a $25 billion deficit in three years. Is that not wonderful? We will be paying $50 billion in interest. We will have another $25 billion worth of debt.

We are doing our part but perhaps we should listen to the NDP. There is bound to be a pile of dollars out there that we can gather in because we need more revenue. Tax them more. Spend more. Do everything we possibly can.

With respect to justice, it costs $40,000 per year to house our inmates and we have something like 17,000 inmates. If we multiply that-we do not have to be too sharp, we can even be a school teacher to do that-we come up with millions and millions more dollars. It is $40,000 to take care of an inmate.

Even one of the Liberals said we have 1,700 from other countries and perhaps we should deport them. I applaud that. That is a good idea. That came from the other side of the House. Good grief, why do the members not listen to that member? We have 1,700 non-citizens sitting in our jails and it is costing us $40,000 a head. Let us send them back. Let us deport them to their countries. That would probably be the worst punishment they could get. Why do we not come up with solutions to what is happening in our judicial system?

If the member for Halifax would only pay attention she might even learn something; I doubt it but she might. I would imagine she has opted out of her pension plan so she can talk a lot.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

No she has not and she will not either. You may quote me.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I will quote her, she will not either. Of course I did not expect any different.

I can recall not too many years back I was told by certain officials in the justice department that once upon a time there were countries interested in negotiating a deal by which they would contract and house our convicts for us, that they would save us a lot of money. Perhaps we need to start looking at that. Perhaps we need to contract with other places to help us with this problem.

The whole crux of this is coming from the people of this country. When we talk to the people, when we talk to their bosses, even though they do not act like bosses-the taxpayer happens to be their boss, I will remind members just in case they have forgotten-they are quite upset that we do not seem to come up with priorities in the House and say we have to take care of health, education, protection, we do need a defence, we want

to make sure the needy are well looked after when it comes to our welfare system. We have put together their thoughts.

I doubt if anyone sitting over there even took time to read it. After all, that did not come from a Liberal, so why look at it. It cannot be any good if it does not come from a Liberal. For the past nine years before the Liberals came it was not any good if it did not come from a Conservative. Before that it was not any good if it did not come from a Liberal. We play this silly game year after year. We all say we need to do something different.

I have not seen anything different; different name, different faces but the same old Tories, same old stories. Nothing has changed.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the hon. member for Wild Rose was speaking about the government hearing the message of the people, asking why it was not hearing the right message, the hon. member for Halifax made the comment "because people in the east are smarter". This is an affront to western Canadians-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, that is a point of debate and not a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, in the next few minutes, to speak to-

Madam Speaker, would it be possible to have quiet?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order!

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-76, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995. Ultimately, in practical terms, the purpose of this bill is to modify certain legislation, following the tabling of the budget with its sometimes devastating consequences.

As I examined this bill, my attention was caught, in particular, by some of the legislation affected, including the first part on public sector compensation, where we can see the results of the government's consistency. If this bill is passed, 45,000 federal public servants will eventually lose their jobs, and yet you will recall, Madam Speaker, that "jobs, jobs, jobs" were what the red book promised.

The ideology continues to be the same. Faced with labour relations problems last week, the government did not hesitate to impose back-to-work legislation on workers who wanted to avail themselves of their right to strike, but who did not even have the time to do so, having first been locked out and then, twelve hours later, legislated back to work. Sometimes, this government is only too consistent.

I also noted that the Western Grain Transportation Act will be adjusted, and yet we know that following the abolition of these subsidies in the West, there will be compensation of three billion dollars, while subsidies to Quebec dairy producers will be cut by 30 per cent, with no mention of compensation. We realize that the member for Brome-Missisquoi will not be leading the protest.

Finally, of course, there is the main body of this budget, which announces cuts in transfers to the provinces over the next three years of $7 billion, including $2.5 billion-around 40 per cent-in cuts to the Quebec government. Quebec, with only 25 per cent of the population, will assume 40 per cent of the cuts. And this is consistent too, not just for this government, but for the entire Canadian federal system.

It is consistent because, if one looks at the figures since 1982, Quebec has been cut $14.3 billion over 12 years. In other words, the government of Quebec, regardless of which party was in power, averaged cuts of over a billion dollars. It is no wonder that the impact of these perverse cuts is being felt in education and health and throughout the system. One only has to think about the community organizations that face repeated cuts resulting from this system based on concealment, on shifting the burden to the provinces and on irresponsibility.

They may laugh, especially since they come from Quebec and have just been elected. Some have not yet realized it. Some people are slower than others. All these cuts and those to come are to be implemented without any changes in Quebecers' tax rates. Quebecers will continue to send between $28 billion and $30 billion to Ottawa. For over a decade, we have seen that compensation in the form of subsidies and tax transfers is steadily declining, while Quebecers' tax rates are being maintained.

In this regard, it is sad that these cuts are being implemented on the backs of the most disadvantaged in our society, that is, patients in hospitals, the unemployed, welfare recipients, retirees and seniors. We feel that these people are being sacrificed because of an administrative choice, a societal choice, an ideological choice made by this government. My colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, talked about this earlier. In light of the finance minister's situation, it is difficult to make different choices.

I am very happy about the movement that was born in my riding last week, which is going to sweep across Quebec. This proposal by the Trois-Rivières chapter of Solidarité Québec will be put to all of Quebec through Solidarité populaire Québec, a movement that will result in a national Quebec petition calling for a commission of inquiry on taxation. I want

to commend the people of the CEQ, the CNTU, the FTQ, the nurses' federation, the union of professional employees of the Quebec government and the union of Quebec public servants, who joined forces to put together a massive petition denouncing the federal government and calling for an inquiry on taxation.

In the end, when they talk about social programs, what do they really mean? We are talking about redistribution of wealth. And when less and less is being distributed, what happens? Wealth is concentrated. That is the evil-the cancer sapping the economy not only in Canada but also throughout the Western world- that has to be denounced and dealt with quickly. Wealth should be distributed, not concentrated as is presently the case.

The government appears to want to distribute wealth, but one must not mistake appearance for reality because, in reality and at the expense of the provinces, it is merely standardizing. It was already standardizing the area of health while at the same time reducing funding. Now, it will do the same not only in the area of social assistance but also, and this is a precedent, in the area of postsecondary education, killing two birds with one stone. On the pretence of bringing the debt under control, the government interferes in a totally unconstitutional way in a area of jurisdiction which, as we know, is very dear to the Government of Quebec in particular and, in Canada as we know it today, is recognized in the constitution as an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Where will this lead? When cuts are this extensive, it means that social programs will have to be chopped as well. It will become necessary to either cut back funding for education and social assistance or raise taxes or both. But what is disgusting and wicked about all this manoeuvring on the part of this government is that it is designed to pass the buck so that it can wash its hands of the matter. That is what Lise Bissonnette was referring to when she spoke of imperial federalism.

[An hon. member]

A dictatorship.

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

Finally, I would like to say a word about the future of Canada, because this whole process is part of a vast operation. This is not our saying; it was reported in Le Journal de Montréal on March 30, 1995, that two Liberals were fearing a fiscal attack against Quebec. The two Liberals in question, Jean-Claude Rivest, recently appointed to the Senate, and Claude Forget, former Liberal minister in the Quebec government, both distinguished and well known Liberals, said that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was preparing a major administrative and tax reform in Canada.

Mr. Rivest added that, in his opinion, there was nothing to fear at the constitutional level but the same could not be said at the fiscal level; there is an opportunity for initiatives, whether constitutional or not, that could change the rules of the game one way or the other. That is was is happening.

So, on the eve of this historic public consultation in Quebec, I hope that, in the Canada of the future, as it now appears, Quebecers will make the right decision.