Mr. Speaker, if the budget is really heading in the right direction as my colleague
across the way claims, ordinary people have every reason to be very worried, because in reality this budget is two-faced. And when I use this expression, I mean it in the usual sense.
This budget says two different things, depending on the people or groups involved: Quebecers or the rest of Canada.
The government said that the budget promotes flexibility and would satisfy Quebec's desire for decentralization.
However, in some cases, why were the people who had believed the promises of flexibility and decentralization so surprised by Bill C-76, which was supposed to make it possible to implement the promises made in the budget? I will read to you clause 48, which amends what is referred to in my version, the first version of the bill, as the Canada Health and Social Transfer. I will allow myself to dwell on this Canada transfer for a long time.
So, clause 48 says the following:
- (1) Subject to this Part, a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a fiscal year for the purposes of (a) establishing interim arrangements to finance social programs in a manner that will increase provincial flexibility;
This pertains mostly to Quebec.
(b) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act-
At this point, the five conditions contained in the Canada Health Act are listed. But, surprisingly, they added extra-billing and user charges, which are mentioned almost as principles.
Then, they add the following, which is the most important and the most surprising to those who were naive enough to believe the ministers who promised that this was going to be a flexible budget:
-maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of other social programs.
This sentence can be taken in no other way than as an announcement of the federal government's intention not to give greater flexibility or more room to manoeuvre to the provinces regarding the organization of their social programs. The only way to read this sentence is that the federal government intends to become more involved in the development of national standards.
Therefore, on the one hand, they talk about flexibility, but, on the other, we see the truth. The truth is that this is the beginning of a push to centralize more. But, of course, a subclause does stipulate that the Minister of Human Resources Development must meet with his provincial counterparts to seek and secure mutual consent. Nowhere does this subclause state that mutual consent will become par for the course, and what is more, there is nothing guaranteeing, on the contrary, that if no agreement is reached-and the agreement is contingent on the central government in the first place-the government will not impose its own vision for social programs.
This is very serious because, contrary to what the party opposite would have us believe, the budget is not balanced. It contains some less-than-straightforward cuts. Where it hits hard, where they say it will hit hard is among ordinary people. It does this in two ways, by the savings that the federal government will make until 1997-98.
As for the cuts to the central government's cash payments to the provinces, which are calculated according to formulas I will not get into but which are supposed to take each province's respective wealth into consideration, they should save the central government $12.3 billion over three years.
Although lower figures of $2.5 billion and $4.5 billion have been quoted, all transfers should be taken into account. These transfers would have taken place but the cuts, the provinces' shortfall and the central government's savings are all new. The new policy calls for slashing social programs like health care, education and social assistance in order to save $12.3 billion over three years by asking the provinces to decide where to cut.
The central government claims that it is flexible. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing better illustrates the meaning of the expression "two-faced". In fact, the central government imposes standards for social assistance. It is removing a number of them but still leaving some. It is toughening health standards and reserves the right to impose additional standards, while forcing savage cuts on the provinces and the most disadvantaged, who are more likely to need these services.
This is a two-faced budget because it does not seem to tackle anything this year whereas next year and especially the year after, there will be, there will have to be drastic cuts to health care, education and social assistance. In two of these three areas, the government is reserving the right to cut transfers if it feels that the provinces are not abiding by national standards. Far from improving access, far from decentralizing, the government is centralizing powers.
What is worse is that, on the one hand, the government is forcing the provinces to cut while, on the other hand, it is using unemployment insurance as a cash cow in order to cushion itself against the next recession, while the provinces will have to bear the brunt of welfare cost increases that will continue to occur as they did during the recent recessions. The government is cushioning itself by transferring more and more costs to the provinces, thus bleeding them dry and putting itself in a position to make them a generous offer to intervene directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is already making such announce-
ments with respect to the long-term unemployed and child poverty.
Who can be against helping the long-term unemployed and poor children? You understand what is happening. Yes, it is a reform of federalism, which had been supporting provincial programs since 1960. They are reducing funds to the provinces, starving them. Instead, with the cushion provided by UI premiums, they will offer the services directly from Ottawa.
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Prime Minister had both promised us that reforms would be carried out. Reforms are indeed under way but they are unconstitutional, they are grave and they will become even radical in the years to come.