Debates of May 2nd, 1995

Export Development Corporation

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a summary of the Treasury Board report on the transactions relating to Canada's accounts for the fiscal year 1993-94 by the Export Development Corporation.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue française, as well as the financial report concerning the branch meeting and the meeting of the Commission des affaires parlementaires of the AIPLF held in Bamako, Mali, on March 6 and 7, 1995.

Petitions

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from approximately 30 members of my riding. The petitioners are opposed to the marketing practices of their cable company, more particularly the negative option approach that was used prior to Christmas.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the CRTC to review the entire manner in which the cable television industry has offered the new specialty channels. They feel that the CRTC should compel cable television companies to provide subscribers with the option to pay for the new channels if they want them, separate from the current channel package.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House a petition signed by many of my constituents in the riding of Ottawa Centre. The petition deals with young offenders and the Young Offenders Act.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from my constituents in the riding of Comox-Alberni. The first contains 114 signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as it is presently written, and in any event not include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation".

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, which comes from all across Canada and contains 1,000 signatures, making a total of 4,100 signatures to date, states that the undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, the six-year-old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.

These petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to ensure conviction of offenders.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance, all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is presented by the official opposition as part of a very important debate that started recently with the tabling of Bill C-76 by the federal government.

We are accustomed to seeing all sorts of things in politics, but I must say that in this case, the discrepancy between what the government says and what is actually going on is beyond belief.

Last Sunday, at a meeting of the provincial wing of the federal Liberal Party in Trois-Rivières, the Prime Minister made an extremely aggressive speech-and this is an understatement, considering the tone and the content of what he said-in which he accused the present Government of Quebec of ignoring the acute poverty problems of Quebec. The Prime Minister based this accusation on the fact that Quebec has a very substantial level of poverty, borne out by the announcement the week before that more than 800,000 people in Quebec were living on welfare.

The Prime Minister exclaimed, to the sound of thunderous applause by his supporters, that the Government of Quebec was to blame, the government of Mr. Parizeau who was so obsessed with the referendum question on sovereignty that he ignored his basic duty which was to deal with the issue of poverty in Quebec.

Personally, as I listened to the news Sunday night on television, I had the impression that I was watching an arsonist accusing firefighters of doing a poor job, because in this particular case, the government that is most at fault, a government that, since it came to power, has been totally aggressive in its treatment of the vulnerable and unemployed members of our society, a government that has done more than any other to aggravate poverty in Canada and Quebec especially, since Quebec is still part of Canada and is still in a position to be treated this way by the Canadian federal system, by decisions that are made in Ottawa, that government has hit hardest at the unemployed.

We had an election campaign in which the Liberal Party of Canada very skilfully read the mood of the people and realized that Canadians and Quebecers had serious concerns about jobs, maintaining social programs and maintaining the federal government's contribution to the implementation of its own programs. The Prime Minister managed to get elected on the basis of three words, which were always the same: jobs, jobs, jobs. All this is in the so-called red book which contains the Liberal government's promises.

However, for some time now there have been no more references to the red book. I remember that during the first year we were here in the House, practically every speech by a Liberal minister or member ended with an enthusiastic reference to the Liberal Party's commitments in the red book. The red book has now become invisible. All we have now is a black list of social program commitments abdicated by the Liberal government.

The facts are there. The figures are eloquent and irrefutable. What has this government done to alleviate the problems created by poverty? What has it done? In fact, every action taken in the budget, every policy is aimed at aggravating the situation.

Let us go back to the beginning. In January 1994, the Liberals tabled Bill C-3 which extended the ceiling on equalization payments, so that the provinces would receive $1.5 billion less during the next five years. We have no figures for this year, but experience has shown that when equalization payments are cut, Quebec has to pick up at least 40 per cent of the slack.

There is more. This was a good start, but there is more. In February 1994, the federal government's first budget did what? It started by cutting $5.5 billion at the expense of the unemployed, which means the UI system had to do without $5.5 billion, while an additional $2 billion was cut at the expense of welfare recipients and the education system, all in the same 1994 budget for the years 1994-95 to 1996-97.

Furthermore, according to an internal document of the Department of Human Resources Development, in 1995-96, Quebec alone will be stuck with 31 per cent of the cuts in unemployment insurance benefits made in the Liberals' first budget. This is stage two of the federal Liberal plan to aggravate the situation of the poor and the vulnerable in our society.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the February 1995 budget, a federal budget carved out with a really sharp axe. It reduced program funding transferred to the provinces by an additional $7 billion, and this translates into a reduction in benefits for people on welfare, for students and the sick. In addition, funding for the unemployment insurance system was cut by another $700 million. You may say that is quite a sum. I just hope that enough is enough. But no, I do not think that the Liberals will stop at

that, because one group has not been hit hard enough in their opinion, and that is seniors.

Obviously, in this case, they realize how sensitive the issue is, that it is particularly despicable and that they are walking a fine line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Nevertheless, they will not hesitate to make the move because they have already announced it. They said in the February 1995 budget that they were going to re-examine the old age pension plan. Who could be so naive as to think that a government which has done nothing but cut social programs since it came to power will actually increase old age pensions when it scrutinizes that program? Nobody.

Therefore, why the review if they are not going to increase pensions? The answer is quite clear. They are reviewing them in order to axe them. Obviously, old age pensions will not be spared by the Liberals, who realize that after cutting funding for the sick, recipients of welfare and students, another potential target for cuts remains: pensioners.

They accuse me of demagogy. But, after citing all those facts and figures, I challenge any Liberal member to stand in front of me and deny even by one iota what I have just said, because I have just given a truthful rendition of the Liberals' actions. It is recorded in the public accounts, it is written in the reports to the House. It is part of the harsh, day-to-day reality of all those who suffer the consequences of this reprehensible attitude towards social programs.

I regret that the government decided to hit old age pensions. It is obvious that the government is initiating a far-reaching operation, but it will encounter an opposition blockade when push comes to shove.

At any rate, they have already cut the net income of seniors by $500 million through the tax increase they imposed on them in the 1994 budget. And the same Prime Minister leading the same government stepped up to the microphone one fine Sunday at the end of April in Trois-Rivières in Quebec, in an area hard hit by this problem, to say to hundreds of people frantically waving small Canadian flags that the Government of Quebec and the sovereignists are to blame for this.

Quebec is not yet a sovereign state. Our current state of affairs and all of our problems and social traumas are the federal regime's doing.

To refresh the memory of Liberal members, the truth is that for the next three years, if we add up all of the cuts contained in the last two budgets, Quebec will be deprived of close to $10 billion in social program financing for those years. It will be deprived of $9.7 billion, I repeat, $9.7 billion. That is what the arrival of the federal Liberals in Ottawa has brought.

We can look at all of this in terms of percentages, one simple figure to sum up the past 15 years. We all well know that the federal government has justified its existence and seen its role in relation to its contribution to social programs for a long time now. This used to be one of the federal regime's good points, which, we recognize, helped to make this country more civilized and a place in which wealth was more evenly shared and the less fortunate were treated with compassion. But for 15 years now, this has no longer been the case and the government has been moving away from these principles at a dizzying pace.

Take Quebec for example. In 1980, the federal government's share in funding for Quebec's social programs was close to 50 per cent. In 1997, the government's share will be only 28 per cent. This represents a drop of close to half of its contribution, an amount that will continue to shrink because we know that the federal government is leaning towards withdrawing its share of funding for programs, although they are essential.

Figures do not lie. We are talking about statistics, amounts of money, resources and percentages. And other figures are so much more telling, more dramatic: they are about people. In the end, it is not a matter of things being left up in the air, of things being left at a level of an academic discussion or of things not going beyond debate in the House. No, in the end, it is a matter of people getting it in the neck, and this is what the Liberals do not understand. But they used to understand, and that was one of the grand traditions of the Liberal Party, which set it apart from the Conservative Party and from the Reform Party. Now, they are all one and the same, because it means nothing to them anymore. They forget, for example, that, in Quebec, since the Liberals came to power, the number of people on welfare has increased by 53,590. Almost 54,000 more people now live on social assistance in Quebec since the arrival of the Liberals.

We are well aware that the new social assistance recipients, those new people on the welfare rolls, come from the ranks of the 40 percent of former UI claimants whose benefits were cut off. This too is one of the fine achievements of the Liberal Party in Ottawa. Not only did they reduce unemployment insurance benefits, they raised unemployment insurance contributions. What is more, they tightened restrictions so that fewer and fewer people can access UI benefits. Conclusion: people have stayed on welfare.

When the Prime Minister, whom I might call the social arsonist, arrives in Trois-Rivières and blames the Government of Quebec for the increase in poverty, there is no doubt in our minds that he is the one responsible for the growing numbers on the welfare rolls through his hateful restrictions. The Prime Minister of Canada is turning people into welfare cases.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That is the truth.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is pure demagoguery. I said so during his speech earlier, but I repeat it now for the whole House to hear because this is how I feel about it.

I must say that quite extraordinary things were just said. We have just heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about new terms. The Leader of the Opposition, the expert in newspeak, as Mr. Orwell called it in his novel entitled 1984 , accused the government of using new terms. Members opposite, who are afraid to use the word separatism and use sovereignty instead, who do not want to hold a referendum unless they are sure of winning it, while rejecting federalism, talk about a federalist sovereignty, which means sovereignty with a federal parliament-you can see the distinction: a federalist sovereignty, but not federalism. That is the difference in the world according to the Leader of the Opposition.

He spoke of massive centralization, while social groups come to Ottawa to denounce what they describe as a restriction of federal powers resulting from Bill C-76. I say that they are both going too far. There are those who, like the Leader of the Opposition, are prone to exaggeration by nature and see the devil at work everywhere. While he, naturally, sees excessive federal presence just about everywhere, others, on the other hand- This is a very serious issue and if the members opposite think otherwise, maybe they should listen to something else than their leader's speech.

I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He denounced what he called national standards in child care.

I heard him speak in support of what reporter Chantal Hébert said. In his remarks, he supported her position, coming out against so-called national standards supposedly set in the bill on child care.

I wonder if he can think back to the election campaign in which he himself ran, in June 1988. Does he remember that there was a bill before the House at the time, a Conservative bill to establish a national child care system, and that he voted for this bill, that he went on to campaign with Mr. Mulroney and that, during the campaign, the public was told that the bill had to be dropped after third reading, after being adopted by the House, because the Senate had asked for one more day to consider the bill in committee? How could he get himself elected in a government that wanted to establish a system that he now accuses others of trying to impose?

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make two comments on the hon. member's preamble regarding a winning referendum. Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between Ottawa's federalists and us, Bloc members and sovereignists in general. The difference is that we want a winning referendum, so that Quebecers can be a fully sovereign nation, like a normal people. We know full well that federal Liberals want a losing referendum.

The federal government hopes that Quebec will once again go down on its knees, so that it can satisfy its centralizing needs and finish the dirty job started in 1982.

As for social groups, the member tells us that they come in droves on Parliament Hill to urge the federal government to impose even more standards on the provinces. First, we did not see much of these groups and, second, I think the member is mistaken.

These groups are not asking the federal government to set bureaucratic rules and increase its bureaucracy to control the provinces. They are asking the Liberal government to pursue its efforts, so that provinces can maintain civilized social programs which make sense. This is what people are asking the federal government.

I have a suggestion for the Liberal member who just made that statement. When he meets with social groups making such complaints about the provinces while extolling the virtues of the federal government regarding social programs, he should provide them with figures indicating what the Liberal Party has done to them in the last two years. He should tell these groups that this Liberal government made drastic cuts in the UI program, that it also made cuts in social programs through transfer payments, that the situation will get worse year after year, and that his government is also about to target old age pensions. If the member tells these facts to social groups, they will go back to their provinces, because that is where their interests are best served. Indeed, the effort is primarily made at that level, thanks to the generosity and compassion of Canadians and Quebecers, not at the level of federal bureaucrats and politicians, who are constantly finding new ways to stop contributing to that effort.

Thirdly, the child care program goes back to 1988, which is some time ago, but I clearly remember it. The legislation included provisions giving full scope to the provinces, while respecting their jurisdiction. It is the Liberal Party which instructed its majority in the Senate to block this $5 billion initiative designed to set up a true child care program.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a straightforward question.

If the federal government gave provinces exclusive jurisdiction over health, education, culture, language and immigration as per the Jean Allaire report, would the Leader of the Opposi-

tion then withdraw his pursuit of separation and agree to recommend to Quebecers to stay in Canada?

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will all agree that it is a purely hypothetical question.

We only have to look at the Liberals opposite; they are petrified at the thought that these issues might be raised in the House. The track record of the Liberals, the federal government, the federal system and the efforts made to renew the Canadian Constitution and federalism has consistently been dismal.

I will be frank with the the member; I would have been delighted by such an offer when I was a federal minister and I would certainly have accepted it since I was ready to accept the Meech Lake accord, which did not even go that far. But, since we could not have the absolute minimum, we will never have the maximum. We will not settle for anything less than Quebec's sovereignty .

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, you know, when you are the finance minister, when you hold an economic portfolio in a government, and even when your portfolio is not an economic one as was the case for the Leader of the Official Opposition, you really care about people's priorities.

Obviously, the priorities of Quebecers, and Canadians as a whole, are job creation, and a meaningful future for their children and their fellow citizens. This is why it is so disappointing for Quebecers and Canadians to hear, day in and day out, the Leader of the Official Opposition and his acolytes talk about a political agenda which has nothing to do with the well-being of Quebecers.

This is why it is so disappointing not to hear them talk about deficit reduction, fiscal restraint, new technologies. They never talk about the environment. They never talk about what really matters to the Canadian people because they have a political agenda which creates uncertainty and has nothing to do with a country's true objectives in an increasingly interdependent world.

As a result, once again, we are presented today with an empty shell. The opposition really wants to waste the time of the House when it should be dealing with the real challenges facing our country and debate issues other than the fruit of the Bloc's imagination.

Let us be perfectly clear, the objective, the plan of the federal government was clearly laid out in the budget speech. In the budget speech, which can be read in both official languages, one can see that it does not intend to impose anything on the provinces, or deliver the goods in the manner unfortunately described by the Leader of the Opposition in the speech he just made.

Let us be clear, under the new system, there will be fewer conditions governing the use the provinces can make of transfers. The provinces will no longer have to abide by rules specifying which expenses are eligible for cost-sharing and which ones are not. They will be free-let us be clear about that-to adopt innovative mechanisms regarding social security reform according to their own priorities.

A more flexible needs test will allow the provinces to make income support and non-monetary benefits more universally available to low income earners or to people who were on welfare and are entering the labour market. It is for these people that we are here. It is for these people that we made these amendments. It is these people that each and every politician in this House should care about, instead of trying to deceive Quebecers with a political adventure creating constant uncertainty in a world in great need of more certainty.

Federal subsidies could be used to support, for example, the PWA program in Quebec and other types of income supplement programs for low income families and workers. That was not the case previously. Also, the Minister of Human Resources Development will invite all provincial governments to work together, through mutual consent. This means that absolutely no condition will be imposed to the provinces. Mutual consent means mutual consent. Both parties will have to be in agreement. They will meet to develop a set of shared principles and objectives that could underlie the Canada social transfer.

Through today's motion, the official opposition is trying to turn our project, which was so well received by the people in Quebec and in all of Canada-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

-to turn the development of a set of shared principles into a contrived issue. These hon. members would like the House, Quebecers and Canadians to believe that this whole process is nothing but a plot to underhandedly impose new conditions, methods or penalties. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that it is not so.

Just in case the Bloc members were daydreaming that day, although I do not believe so, let me remind you of what I said during the budget speech I delivered on February 27, 1995: "I will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on developing, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles and objectives that could underlie the Canada social transfer". This is exactly the commitment we are making in Bill C-76, without adding or deleting anything.

Of course, if there are problems, we will introduce amendments, but the goal of the government is clear: we do not want to impose anything on the provinces, we want to help the provinces and the federal government to put their financial houses in order and to give provinces a lot more flexibility. This is why I am so pleased to confirm today what the opposition leader has a little trouble with, which is our commitment to propose to the appropriate committee the following amendments.

To establish interim arrangements to finance social programs in a manner that will increase provincial flexibility. The amendment reads as follows:

Maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility

and the provisions relating to extra-billing and user charges.

Also, to apply the national criterion stipulated in section 19 which requires or allows no minimum period of residence as a condition for eligibility for social assistance. The amendment reads as follows:

Promoting any shared principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection (3), with respect to the operation of social programs, other than a program for the purpose referred to in paragraph ( b ).

The Canada Health and Social Transfer shall consist of, (a) a federal income tax reduction in favour of the provinces that would enable the provinces to impose their own tax measures without a net increase in taxation; and

(b) a cash contribution not exceeding the amount computed in accordance with section 14.

The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles and objectives for the other social programs referred to in paragraph 1( d ) that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer.

When I spoke on the budget I made it clear that the government's objectives were to clean up the nation's finances, to put the country once again on a sound financial footing and, at the same time, to give the provinces far greater flexibility in the elaboration and the design of a multitude of social programs.

We made it very clear we were imposing only two conditions on that transfer. The first was that the objectives of the Canada Health Act must be respected. It is a covenant of the government with the Canadian people. We will never allow that to be taken away.

Second, the only standard that would be imposed on other social transfers would be that no minimum residency requirement be necessary for CAP. We would not allow provinces to take welfare away from people because they had not had a long term residence within that province.

I said very clearly in this House that we had no intention of imposing anything else on the provinces, that we had no intention of imposing new national standards, that the minister simply wanted to sit down with his provincial counterparts to discuss freely with them issues such as Canadian values and the smooth running of both federal and provincial governments.

It is hard to understand that, with all the opportunities we have of working together to create jobs for our young people and to reduce poverty in Quebec, the members opposite have chosen to sidestep this issue. They come here with an artificial problem that has nothing to do with the truth and the reality of our country and of our budget.

The Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition. It has a responsibility to Canadians to speak for the nation. Members of the Bloc Quebecois talk about having an economic union. They talk about working with Canada. Let Canadians understand the way members of the Bloc Quebecois see working. Will they speak for the nation? No. Will they speak for national interest? No. Will they speak for Canadians' desire to have jobs? No. Will they speak for those who would take Canadians out of poverty and give our children a chance for a decent life? No.

What do they do? Day after day they come into the House and stand up with artificial questions that have nothing to do with the Canadian reality. Day after day they come in, as they have done today, and make up a problem. This country has problems.

We do have problems. We do not have to invent them. Why not work with us to solve the problems we have as a country? Why not join Canadians from all the provinces in saying that the real challenges lie beyond our borders? Competition comes from Japan, Germany and the United States. Competition is not between Quebecers and Albertans, but between Canadians and Japanese, between Canadians and Germans. That is where we have to look if we want to build a strong future for ourselves.

Instead of that, the Bloc Quebecois tried to create a problem because it had to find something to discuss on this opposition day. It decided that maybe it could mislead the people of Quebec by saying that the government wants to impose new national standards.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and I can assure the leader of the opposition that this is not true.

The Leader of the Opposition has been a member of the federal cabinet. He knows very well what kind of country Canada is, with an outstanding potential.

Let me be quite clear. This government is going to stand up for the Canada Health Act. There is no doubt about that. It will not deviate from that policy. It will also make sure no province imposes residency rules that would deprive Canadian citizens of social benefits.

We have also clearly stated that we do not intend in any way to impose national standards on any province through the budget or the Canadian social transfer legislation. The minister intends to have discussions with the provinces on whether there are other values or Canadian goals we should concentrate on.

The Leader of the Opposition is sidestepping the issue for political reasons that have nothing to do with the day-to-day life of our fellow citizens.

He and the Bloc Quebecois are once again looking for ways to create acrimony and uncertainty. Instead of fostering the well-being of Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois is trying to create a problem where there is none.

Let this country understand that the official opposition refuses not only to speak for the national interest but in this debate is refusing to speak for the interests of Quebecers.

There is no intention to impose anything on any province. There is one intention and that is to create jobs. There is one intention and that is to give our children a decent future. There is one intention and that is to protect the Canada Health Act. There is one intention and that is to make sure that residency is not a condition for welfare. There is one intention and that is for this country to realize every bit of its potential. It is to give this country and its citizens the opportunities that it has as a result of the tremendous talent that exists within the ground and the talent that walks upon it. That is what this country is all about.

The time has come for Bloc Quebecois members to join Quebecers who want to build our great country, Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Minister of Finance, the one person responsible for cuts in this government. He was the one who cut unemployment insurance, social programs and transfer payments. Then he has the nerve to tell us: "In the budget speech, one can see that the government does not intend to impose anything on the provinces". Has he forgotten already that he cut social programs and education by seven billion dollars for the next three years? It takes some nerve, Mr. Speaker.

It takes nerve also to say that the important issue is job creation when this government has failed completely in this area. This government has done nothing for job creation. The only job creating program mentioned in the red book, municipal infrastructures, was reduced by 200 million dollars in the recent budget.

So I believe people will have to be careful to sort out reality from inflated patriotic language and repeated protestations. Reality is extremely harsh and inescapable; it shows this government has taken a turn to the right and has decided to attack the unemployed, the have-nots of our society. It did impose 100 million dollars of additional temporary taxes on banks but, at the same time, decided to take 700 million dollars from the unemployed. This government has launched the worse attack ever against the have-nots of Canada.

So when the Bloc speaks in the interest of those people it is talking in true legitimacy. We are very proud to say what we say in this House. If we were not here, nobody else would defend social programs and the right to strike.

What we represent in this House is legitimate all across Canada.