Himself. We, in the Official Opposition, have not been sitting in this place for very long, but from what we are told, it is quite unusual for a finance minister to put forward, just to prove his point, amendments to his own legislation, amendments which in this case were submitted in writing only weeks later.
When the Minister of Finance takes the trouble to prepare amendments well in advance, you figure that this time, he is going to try and fine-tune the bill and incorporate what he says into the act. So, what did he say?
"We want to give flexibility to the provinces." Great! Now, what does his own amendment to his bill say? Basically, it says the following. Perhaps it comes as a surprise to the finance minister that the Official Opposition can read bills.
Clause 13 essentially says this: Subject to this Part, a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province [-]for the purposes of: ( a ) establishing interim arrangements to finance social programs [-].It has been said that the provinces should enjoy greater flexibility. ( b ) maintaining the criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act [-]; ( c ) maintaining the national standard, set out in section 19 [-]; ( d ) promoting any shared principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection (3), with respect to the operation of social programs [-].
Again, what are these social programs? They are those we identified earlier: post-secondary education, social services and welfare. This clause can only be read as follows: "A Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided for the purposes of", among other things, "promoting any shared principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection (3)".
The government will use the transfers to promote these principles. Ah! Whenever the central government uses its transfers to promote something, there is cause for concern. As the old saying goes, "Old habits die hard".
What does subsection (3) say? It says this: "The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent,"-not unanimous consent but mutual consent-"a set of shared principles and objectives"-for the social programs being referred to, namely post-secondary education, social services and welfare-"that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer".
The only good news is that the Minister of Human Resources Development would invite representatives of the provinces. Yet, since the minister was elected, he has not seen fit to invite the provincial employment and human resources ministers. It says that he would invite them, but it does not say when.
That clause, with its various paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, can only be interpreted as reflecting the federal government's intention to use transfers to promote principles which are not unanimously approved-thus leaving the possibility that Quebec, and perhaps other provinces, might not agree-, but which are common principles. The idea is to use transfers to promote common principles.
Considering how careful the Minister of Finance was before submitting his amendments, it is clear that the government intends to meddle even more in provincial matters. The goal is crystal clear: to ask the provinces to follow common principles and objectives regarding post-secondary education, social services and social assistance.
However, the provinces are fed up with the cuts announced. What are these cuts? I will repeat them, but I will use a different perspective. We were told on numerous occasions that these cuts would total $7 billion but, in fact, it is more than that and those who are listening to us realize that.
When someone's salary is reduced-for example, if a person earning $450 a week is told by the employer that he or she must accept a $150 cut per week so that the company will survive-that person knows that the cut is either temporary, which means that he or she will lose $150 multiplied by the number of applicable weeks, or permanent, which means that he or she will lose $150 every week.
However, when the provinces are faced with a $4.5 billion cut one year, followed by a $2.5 billion the next, the total is not just $7 billion. From 1994-95 to the end of 1997-98, the provinces will have been deprived of $12.3 billion. This means that the cuts which they, in turn, have to make are not temporary ones. They have to be structural cuts, since they do not even know what to expect next.
Quebec is particularly affected. It will lose at least 27 per cent of those $12.3 billion. This is an enormous amount, given that, from what we hear, the reform announced in Montreal, which raises so many concerns, will result in savings of only $180 million. I say only, because that is the sad truth. So when we hear members singing the praises of renewed federalism, I think they have a lot of nerve-and I hope "culot" is not unparliamentary-because the truth of the matter is that these changes will bring about major disruptions in the services that people receive. And thanks to federalism, these disruptions will be blamed on the provinces.
The provinces will have to cut spending, and the public will suffer the consequences this will have for health care, education, social services and welfare. National standards for health care will be maintained but the provinces will have to cut back drastically, perhaps not so much on health care but on education, welfare and social services.
The government announces reforms but makes these cuts without considering the consequences, because it wants to cultivate this image of a responsible government, and so it transfers the problems to the provinces and the private citizens. Meanwhile, and this is not in Bill C-76, it is in the budget but is not mentioned because it has separate legislation and the government is not going to meddle with unemployment insurance just now, the government is letting the Unemployment Insurance Fund run a surplus. Five billion dollars this year alone. Five billion dollars next year.
Soon there will be another recession, and people are predicting one, although we are right in the middle of a so-called upturn, but it is not a good time for everyone. It is not a good time for a lot of people, and now they are predicting another recession. When? Who knows? In a few months, in a year or two years, but the fact remains that the provinces, which have seen their welfare rolls increase even now, during this economic upturn, and it was like that this month in Quebec, the provinces will be stuck with dealing with an increasing number of people on welfare and the accompanying increase in social needs, while the federal government has this fund, so that it will not only be able to maintain unemployment insurance benefits but will also be in a position to lend a helping hand to the provinces while intruding on their jurisdictions. It will no longer have to set certain criteria for programs. It will make the decisions itself. The government itself will intrude into fields that are not its own.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are changing Canada. Much more surely than if we amended the Constitution, but not in terms of flexibility. No. The only flexibility in this is the flexibility to cut. Some flexibility. All the rest gives the central authority-as in Bill C-76 and other legislation-the central government powerful means to change the structure of Canada by making Ottawa even more the brains and operational centre of Canada,
to the point where the provinces will soon hardly even be regional structures, they will be branches of Ottawa.
Quebecers are a distinct people and form a distinct society. They have repeatedly tried to make a place for themselves in this country. Their demands were modest. Inadequate would be a better word than modest in terms of what Robert Bourassa asked for at Meech Lake. Quebec kept getting "no" for an answer. Now, reforms are being made, but not the reforms Quebec wanted. These reforms are in completely the opposite direction and they are leaving Quebec much worse off.
Quebecers now know that their only hope lies in solidarity, in combining their tax dollars so they can plan, be prepared and invest where they want rather than have the course of the province's development imposed by a central government, which cuts where it feels like it and collects money where it feels like it.
Those of us on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development heard repeated calls for strong national standards across Canada, except in Quebec. We have nothing against generous social services for everyone, quite the opposite, but we want to establish our own standards, because peoples and nations organize themselves, run their economy and do business according to their own priorities and objectives.
Under existing conditions, Quebecers have no choice, if they want a future, but to gather up their money and their means and make their own laws and treaties.