Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East, who by introducing this motion, has enabled me to participate in today's debate and to speak to a subject that I hold dear and that is of concern to the Bloc, namely the increase in poverty.
The motion by the member of the NDP proposes that the government set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment and that it should pursue these targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit. The Bloc Quebecois has no disagreement with the aim of this motion, but we would point out that the means proposed to fight poverty must respect provincial jurisdictions. We do not want flowery speeches on poverty, but action when we have the means to change things.
That is why I would like to point out today that the very same Liberals, now in government, criticized the government of Brian Mulroney in the 1993 elections for systematically weakening the social safety net. This is what the red book says. They accused the Conservatives of cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in health care and assistance to children, seniors and the unemployed. These fine words come from the red book of the Liberal Party, while it was in opposition.
It looks a lot like the criticism levelled at the present Liberal government. Since the Liberals have been in government, few specific measures have been taken to slow the rise of poverty in Quebec and Canada. Worse yet, despite its election promises, the current government refused to unleash a vigorous fight against poverty and to a large extent it has weakened measures taken by Quebec.
Tom Kent, one of the main architects of social programs under the Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson, is very critical of this government, accusing it of being largely responsible for the cuts in health and social programs in the provinces.
A few days before the Minister of Finance brings down his budget and with the little time we have, I would remind this House of what the government refused to do to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged and what the Bloc proposes in order to really fight poverty. The situation is not as rosy as the Liberal members in this House would have us think.
We strongly encourage the Liberal government to stop wandering about and to drop its obsession with looking after its own visibility before the interests of taxpayers. Otherwise, it will have to face strong opposition from the Bloc Quebecois MPs.
There must be a proper strategy for dealing with the problem of poverty. The provinces need to have the necessary funds to put into place measures tailored to their realities, which may differ from one context to another. Is it too much to ask for this government to respect the need while respecting jurisdictions?
What the Bloc is proposing first of all is that the amounts that were taken away from the provinces for social transfers be paid back. It is all very fine for the Liberals to boast that their cuts are over now, but I would like to remind them this evening that the cuts to health, education and social services cost the provinces more than $6 billion a year, and will do so until the year 2003, for a total of $42 billion.
To illustrate the unprecedented impact of these cuts, we need only remember that, in Quebec, out of every dollar cut from health, education and social assistance by the National Assembly in 1994 and today, approximately 75 cents are the result of the downloading done by the federal Liberals.
Clearly put, Quebeckers must realize, and we cannot ever repeat it too many times, that it is through their efforts in recent years that the federal deficit was eliminated, as the Minister of Finance boasts.
Before starting up its spending again, it is imperative for the federal government to reimburse the provinces. This is why we are proposing that, to cancel out the effect of the cuts there have been since 1993, the government need only restore to the provinces tax points equivalent to 25% of the forecast surpluses for the next two years.
If the federal government gave the provinces $2 billion in tax points in 1998-99, and an additional $4 billion for 1999 and 2000, they would end up with the same amount of money they were getting at the start of the Liberals' term in office, when they were elected in 1993.
In the next budget the government will be tempted to make new expenditures, once again in the jurisdiction of the provinces. We therefore encourage the Minister of Finance to resist such temptation, but we know he will not.
In the 1997 throne speech, the federal government clearly announced its intention to create programs for children and young people in the areas of health, education and social policy. Should we applaud that? Not yet. The federal government is talking about looking after home care, community services, strategies for youth, bursaries, pharmacare, ways to interest young people in science, a national school nutrition program, Canada wide benefits for poor children, a Canadian foundation for innovation, and a partridge in a pear tree. All provincial jurisdictions.
It would be unspeakable for the government to use some of the savings from transfer cuts for hospitals, schools and social assistance to increase its visibility while putting its stamp on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
A number of representatives from different milieux are very critical of this government's approach. Its centralizing attitude without regard for the provinces has but one aim: to show it off in the best light and thus justify its existence.
Viewers must be wondering why the Bloc Quebecois is making such a kerfuffle over reimbursement of social transfers to the provinces. The reason is simple: the government's cuts to the transfers considerably hamper the establishment of real social policy.
Quebec already has policies in these areas. The Quebec government released its white paper on family policy in 1997. The Premier of Quebec emphasized that economic recovery had to be achieved through a better coalition of labour and family, through more equitable policies and more work incentives. A true redistribution of wealth and a genuine effort to combat poverty must place the focus on children and their families.