Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-71. A number of things were said on this bill and many more could be added to stress the importance of this legislation, which deals with several aspects of the federal government's finances.
I want to emphasize three points. First, I will discuss the issue of the transfer of federal funds to the provinces. Then I will deal briefly with the national child benefit, before concluding with a suggestion to the government to improve public finances.
As for transfers to the provinces, earlier, someone who is rather thick and who sits across the floor accused the Bloc Quebecois of not having any respect for the per capita formula. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois and all the democrats in this House respect that principle, but this is not what is at issue when we are dealing with transfers to the provinces.
The federal government was petty and dishonest in the way it went about changing the formula. That formula was based on a number of factors, including population, but also on other factors that are not strictly related to the population. There were even some clearly defined agreements and announcements. In the 1996 budget, the government clearly stated that, if changes were made to the formula used to calculate transfers to the provinces, 50% would be based on population until 2002-03.
That is not what happened. In fact, the federal government changed the formula used in the calculation of transfer payments without telling Quebec and the other provinces, and the new formula it imposes upon them will come into effect in 2001. Not only was this change not announced, but there was an agreement in place. At least, that agreement was mentioned in the 1991 budget. Moreover, this was done only a few weeks after the signing of the social union agreement, which stated clearly that the federal government would not change the formula without giving the provincial governments at least 12 months notice.
Again, the federal government did not keep its word and changed the formula, which means that Quebec will lose $350 million a year for three or four years. Quebec will lose nearly $1 billion, maybe more, because of a cheap trick by the federal government.
What I find particularly appalling is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the two most powerful people in this government, are not protecting Quebec's interests, in spite of the fact that they both come from Quebec and that Quebec has the right to demand that the formula be maintained as agreed, in other words that it not be changed until 2002-03. This is a cheap and dishonest move, and the Bloc Quebecois has stirred up a lot of discussion on this issue.
I see this as anti-Quebec behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. And there are more examples of anti-Quebec behaviour. For example, I could speak for some time on the social union, the millennium scholarships, and the way the government is trying to harm Quebec's interests.
On the one hand, these attacks have been more pronounced since 1995 and the referendum. On the other, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister seem to lack the courage and political will to develop fair economic policies.
A case in point is the national child benefit. As we know, the needs are huge in Canada. In spite of the fact that the government had promised it would reduce it, child poverty in Canada is worse now, in 1999, than it was in 1993 when the government came to power.
There are many other examples. The member for Rosemont mentioned housing, from which the federal government withdrew completely. Employment insurance is another one. These are instances of gross social injustice. On the one hand, this government has been multiplying its attacks against Quebec, there are countless examples of this. On the other, it seems to be somewhat indecisive, weak, and lacking in courage when it comes to social and justice issues across the country.
I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister something that might help him be remembered in the future. I read this morning in La Presse that he was bemoaning the fact that very little was made of his accomplishments. The fact of the matter is his government did not accomplish anything. He has done nothing we might remember him by.
If the Prime minister wants to do something that will stick in the memory of Canadians and Quebecers, I suggest he abolish the other place, where people sleep and snore, wasting $60 million of our hard-earned money. If the Prime Minister had the courage to do what has to be done to abolish the other place, he could recover the $60 million wasted on 104 senators, who do very little work, and use this money to meet the needs of the poor, the children and the unemployed, as well as for housing.
To illustrate how the $60 million could be better spent on other projects than for those 104 friends of the government, this amount could be used to create some 20,000 summer jobs for young people.
If, as he says, the Prime Minister is really concerned by the future of young Canadians, he should take his political responsibilities and abolish the other place, take the money and spend it on summer jobs for youth. If 20,000 jobs could be created in one year, this means that over a period of ten years 200,000 jobs could be created for young people by using the money which is presently being wasted on the other place to maintain 104 friends of the government.
There are ways of doing this. Indeed, I sent a document in my riding of Quebec East, in which I proposed a way to empty the other place.
The solution would be to reduce the other place's budget, which now stands at $50 million, to $104, that is $1 per senator per year. There is not one single senator in the world who would accept such a budget. This would encourage senators to retire and to enjoy a comfortable pension.
If the Prime Minister introduced in next year's budget for the Senate a provision allocating $104 for the next fiscal year, I am convinced that a majority of members of the House would vote for it. We have the authority to do so, because we have political legitimacy and we represent voters. This budget could not be rejected by the Senate.
Senators do not represent anybody. They represent nothing but political parties, special interests, or the Prime Minister's interests. This would be a way to emptying with the Senate without abolishing it. This kind of budget would encourage senators to retire. Those who wanted to stay on with a salary of $1 a year could do it on a voluntary basis, or for the love of their country, but not to collect a big pay cheque and numerous costly benefits for very little work.
Today, in 1999, we have no need—and it is even scandalous to keep it—for the other place, we do not dare and are not allowed to name in this House. In my view, it is an abomination that a proud democratic country should tolerate such an institution.
This proposal is on the table, and concrete and realistic means have also been suggested. Now, it is only a matter of political will, a political will the government could muster to meet the needs of all Canadians. If the Prime Minister wants to leave an achievement of lasting memory, let him take up this challenge. Let him reduce the budget of the other place and use the savings to create jobs for young people. With 20,000 jobs a year, we could get 200,000 over a period of 10 years.