So now things have to be glossed over, kept hidden, and the best way, in the government's mind, to do so is to use new terms. So we have a marvellous new term: the Canada social transfer. It was preceded by trial balloons announcing the government's withdrawal from provincial jurisdiction, its confinement to its own jurisdictions and its transfer of money to the provinces to enable them to meet their responsibilities, and the rabbit that popped out of the hat was the Canada social transfer.
We might have wondered what was happening at the beginning, but now we know, because it is in black and white in Bill C-76. The bill lets us know very clearly what it is all about. It is about a centralizing assault, the likes of which we have not seen since the shameful patriation of 1982. For the first time in 15 years, the government is charging ahead, visor raised, along the route of massive and unequivocal centralization. It says so in the bill.
Now the federal government will not be content just to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. It will not be satisfied with legal opinions from the Department of Justice. It will not be satisfied by merely appeasing its appetite for power. It is going to set up a legislative framework for itself to achieve its end. This framework is known as Bill C-76, legislation that is a charade as well, because it is one of the ways the federal government is concealing the fact that it is dumping its poor management onto the provinces.
It is also charade, because the government is using it to mask the extent of the cuts it is imposing on the provinces. And it is an even greater charade, because it is claiming falsely to eliminate national standards. The fact of the matter is that no bill has ever given the federal government so much power to impose national standards. This does not apply just to the traditional social programs; it is throughout the bill. For the first time, a bill explicitly provides for the federal government's imposition of standards in post-secondary education, an area that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction.
For the first time, the federal government is empowering itself to say: "I do not like this educational program. You will do it this way, or I will cut funding". Same thing for social programs. Do not just take my word for it. Many observers and analysts have noted and seen very clearly that the aim of the exercise is to confirm the $7 billion cuts announced for the next three years and to give the federal government the power to dictate the set-up of the provinces' social programs to which it will be contributing less and less.
I said authoritative voices have said this. I will quote, for example, Lise Bissonnette, who wrote the following in an editorial in Le Devoir last week. She said: According to Bill C-76, post-secondary education is now comparable to a social program. The bill allows Ottawa to apply national standards, in this area, as in others. The provinces, whose jurisdiction over education is as clear as it can be in the Canadian Constitution, are at best assured of consultation''. <em>La Presse</em> agrees with <em>Le Devoir</em> . It may reassure the Liberals to know that in the March 31, 1995 edition of <em>La Presse</em> , Chantal Hébert writes,With the bill tabled in the Commons to implement its February budget, the federal government opens the door to the unilateral imposition of new national standards in areas such as post-secondary education, child care, etc. In fact, Bill C-76 now restricts the provinces to the role of mere consultant in this exercise. The bill has no provision requiring the provinces' prior consent to the introduction of new national standards for social programs''.
In Le Devoir of April 21, Conrad Yakabusski himself writes, ``Although Ottawa boasted in its February 27 budget of having freed the provinces of Canadian standards in the management of social programs, the Chrétien government now wants to make them adhere to a whole series of new national principles that would apply to a wider range of programs. And although it claims it wants the provinces to comply voluntarily with these principles, the federal government is about to give itself the powers it needs to impose them in case the provinces refuse to do so''.
In closing, I will also quote Giles Gherson, principal secretary to Mr. Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who said, "What would occur after the failure of negotiations aimed at setting national standards remains ambiguous".
The bill that is the subject of today's motion clearly shows what will occur if the announced negotiations between the federal government and the provinces do not result in an agreement. Without an agreement, it is clear that the government will find in this bill all the latitude and power it needs to impose its standards. I am very concerned when I hear that it is preparing to tell provincial governments like that of Quebec that if they do not comply, their funding will be cut off.
Meanwhile, a historic, essential process is unfolding in Quebec: the preparation of a referendum on sovereignty. It is not every day that a people can decide whether it should face its future as a sovereign people or a province. Quebec will do this in the fall. The federal government, which has the nerve to tell us it will propose a type of flexible federalism after the referendum, is clearly showing us today what Quebec can expect if it stays in the Canadian federation.
If Quebec stays in the Canadian federation, we can expect to live under the boot of the federal government, to let federal bureaucrats and politicians set standards for Quebec's social and education programs. They have the nerve to say this to us now, when we are on the verge of making our decision. I can tell you
that Quebecers are taking note of this and that this will weigh heavily in the outcome of the Quebec referendum.