Michel Gauthier

[Job Creation, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we understand each other well, the Minister of Finance and I. Therefore, I ask him the following: How can his government-the government that is doing so little for job creation, I would remind him-how can it justify giving tax exemptions to people investing in RRSPs, who, through these RRSPs, are permitted to invest 20 per cent of their capital outside the country, who thus keep or create jobs outside the country, when this 20 per cent can go as high as 36 per cent through an investment in trust companies?

How does the Minister of Finance justify the hard blow to the labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which invest and ask only to invest all their money in keeping and creating jobs at home? They are trying to save and maintain our businesses. Is this not reason for him to change his mind?

[Job Creation, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would correct the minister and remind him that the fund set up by the CSN, for example, is a new one and has not had time to capitalize and really get off the ground. The blow dealt it by the Minister of Finance is extremely hard for such a fund to absorb; it could well cut it off in mid flight.

I would ask the minister how he explains his attack on the labour-sponsored venture capital funds, when he has not withdrawn the authorization given RRSPs-regular registered retirement savings plans-in January 1994 to invest 20 per cent of their funds abroad, promoting job creation, but abroad?

[Job Creation, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's budget strikes hard at the financing capabilities of the 19 venture capital firms of Canadian workers. The Minister of Finance is thus attacking job creation directly, because employee funds have assets of nearly $3 billion. More than $800 million has been invested in Canada's economy and has helped create and keep some 38,000 jobs in Quebec alone.

Since the government is doing so little to create jobs, how can it justify going on to attack a tool as effective in creating and maintaining jobs as the labour-sponsored venture capital funds, because they invest all their money in Canada's economic development?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to come back to the Prime Minister and ask him this: Would he not agree, if the federal government were to withdraw from the field of health, where it has no business being, from the field of education, where it has no business being, from manpower training, where it has no business, if it did not get into securities, where it has no business and if it did not get into tax collecting, which is none of its business, does he not realize that the federal machinery would be less ponderous and less costly and that there would be fewer problems in Canada?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to see that, for the Prime Minister, simplifying operations always means taking them out of the hands of the provinces and moving them to the federal level.

The federal government has this bad habit of constantly intervening in fields of jurisdiction that do not belong to it. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that yesterday's budget contained nothing to reduce the government's operating expenses, which would have helped reduce the exorbitant lifestyle of the federal government? A fine example is the creation of two new national agencies, which will overlap provincial agencies doing the same work.

Does he not realize that he missed a fine opportunity to realize savings in government operations?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we were there when the budget was tabled yesterday. The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is, in some ways, a sort of exercise in centralization with the creation of a national revenue commission, an exercise in cosmetics because it hides the nasty blows of the government's decisions to the unemployed, to women and to the provincial governments, and an expression of incompetence by the government, which has done nothing more to cut its expenditures than it did in past budgets.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Will they acknowledge that the establishment of a national revenue commission, like the securities commission announced in the speech from the throne, is an act of centralization revealing the government's uncontrollable propensity to assume powers that are, constitutionally, in the hands of the provincial governments?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

"-without the consent of the majority of the provinces". Which means that if the majority of the provinces consent, the federal government will interfere in areas in which it has no business.

Instead of withdrawing, of minding its own business, of simplifying its machinery, the federal government has chosen to interfere still further in areas of exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

How can anyone conceive of a country where the main occupation of a government consists in seeking out areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it, just to stir things up? To my knowledge, the only government that does so is the government in Ottawa.

Evidence of this is easy to find. We have been told of the creation of a Canadian securities commission. This is an area in which the federal government has never been involved and in which it has no business being involved, one which will require it to rehire staff, to create a structure, to duplicate what is already being done in Quebec, to complicate things. And why? In honour of what? In honour of its so-called mission, or what it thinks is its mission.

The federal government has also announced its intention of creating a Canada revenue commission. "It would be good if there were only one collector for all taxes in Canada". In the course of history, not only has the federal government funded its war efforts through powers of taxation it did not originally have under the Constitution, but now as well it wants to collect taxes on behalf of all of the administrations in Canada. If this is how a government acts when it wants to cut back, to trim the fat, to mind its own business, my goodness, I wonder where we are headed. Over time, there is an increasing tendency for the government to want to poke its finger into areas where it has no business being.

Some may reply that it might be worthwhile to eliminate duplication. That could be the case, if there were only one department of revenue, one national commission. Have you noticed how the federal government is in a rush to do away with duplication if that means cornering all of the powers for itself, and how reluctant it is to return those powers to their rightful owners?

Not only is the federal government incapable of cutting its expenditures, not only is it incapable of staying within its own federal role and of leaving the jurisdictions of others alone, but on top of that it refuses to act in areas where it ought to have responsibility, employment for one. How many job creation measures-and this is another way of looking at the budget-did the Minister of Finance announce? Is the minister aware of the need to take action to create conditions that are conducive to job creation in this country?

"Jobs, jobs, jobs", as they were saying during the election campaign. So I checked. Did the minister announce major job creation measures? Although, in the budget document, the government claims to be investing in future jobs and growth, students and their families get nothing but crumbs: $165 million over three

years. In the last budget, the minister cut student funding by half a billion dollars. Last year, they cut half a billion dollars but this year, they are investing in jobs and setting aside, for example, $165 million for students.

Have you ever seen anything like it? On the one hand, they cut millions of dollars and, on the other hand, they give away a few crumbs while bragging: "We took action to stimulate employment. We are reallocating $315 million over three years to create new job opportunities for young people by, among other things, doubling the funds for student summer employment". The federal government is incapable of taking action, of making changes, of supporting provincial governments adequately in their efforts to promote economic recovery, but it keeps unemployment hovering around 10 per cent in Canada and it tells us: "We have allocated $165 million for students and their families, $315 million, over a three year period, for new job opportunities, including summer jobs".

The government shows a total lack of vision. This is a trim down budget. There is nothing regarding what was asked of the government itself. There is nothing about stimulating the economy. The only thing this government made in recent years was to ask other governments to make an effort. Indeed, the federal government asked provincial governments to absorb part of its deficit. It asked the provinces to absorb a total of $7 billion.

It is easy for the federal government to lower its deficit when it tells the provinces: "Look, you will no longer receive the money that you used to get from us". So much for that. This means a shortfall of $7 billion for the provinces. It also means $5 billion less each year in the UI fund. It is easy to tell the unemployed: "Listen, there is a surplus of money in your fund, even though the government does not contribute one penny to that fund. That surplus of $5 billion per year comes from your own contributions and those of your employers. Nevertheless, we want to put that money in our pockets. This is part of the federal government's budgetary effort".

Some $7 billion less for the provinces and about $5 billion taken every year from the UI fund. And the Minister of Finance tells us that these cuts will be maintained over a number of years. The minister says: "Look at how good I am. I reached my objectives. I am a remarkable administrator and, in addition to all that, I also injected a few million dollars into the employment sector. Let us hear it for me, after all I am the best finance minister this country has ever had

We are not fooled by the message that was delivered to us. The Minister of Finance has tried to disguise the bad news for the unemployed and for the women who will lose their financial autonomy when they reach retirement age, as a result of the changes the minister wants to make in a few years in the old age security program. So, bad news for the unemployed, for women, for young people too, who will be bearing the brunt of the sizeable cuts imposed upon them by the minister, despite the few millions announced. Bad news for those who were hoping the federal government would finally learn to mind its own business and stay within its own areas of jurisdiction. Bad news, too, for those who had hopes that the government would finally trim some of the fat and become more productive.

In short, this budget reflects one of two things: either the minister has totally run out of new ideas, no longer knows what to do, is running out of energy, sees himself as unable to do more and is settling for apologies about what he has done in his time as minister, or the government is getting ready to go to the people and is trying to butter them up a bit, to use a bit of subterfuge, to say "Well now, things may not be all that great, but neither are we all that bad a government after all".

Before I close, let me say that the people are not fools. We will never be able to accept a government that has put us into debt to the tune of some $3,700 per person in the past two and a half years still wants to invade areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it, nor will we accept its refusal to trim the fat as it should, or that it is now coming to us with the explanation that the provincial governments need to do their part, need to reduce their deficits, need to assume the federal deficit, in short that it wants to direct things on behalf of everyone within the Canadian federation.

I will be frank: Quebecers cannot accept such a budget. It is a cosmetic budget, one hiding the truth, one which may help the Minister of Finance and his government to hold on for a few more months, but it does not address the underlying problem. It does not address Canada's true financial situation, which is a disaster from all points of view. I believe that people have more respect for those who have courage and who know how to call things by their right name than those who try to disguise them with politics. This is a lesson the Minister of Finance ought to take to heart.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great moment in the life of a government and in the life of politicians when a budget is introduced. It is an important moment as we can tell when we see the media bustle feverishly around the House of Commons or the Quebec National Assembly trying to see, to understand if what is going to be announced will have some impact on our lives. They try to find out if all the affirmations made some days earlier in the different media, in the newspapers-a tax on this or that-will be confirmed and if the government will once again hit the taxpayer with new taxes or increases.

In this case, I watched the media this morning and I read all the documents that the Minister of Finance tabled in the House. I worked with my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who is the critic of our party on these matters, and with assistants to try to find out what the Minister of Finance had said and especially, what he had not said in his budget speech. I came to the following conclusion: either the government is short of ideas or it is preparing to call an election. We are going to discuss both scenarios.

I repeat: the government has no imagination. I know that you are going to ask me to prove it and it will be an easy task. Experts admit that they have not seen such a minor, feeble, watered-down budget tabled in the House for in a very long time. The Minister of Finance gave us some general indications on the state of the economy, on his deficit predictions, on the state of the debt. He mentioned a few small programs here and there, made some nicely put announcements, but his speech did not really respond to the need to know of parliamentarians and experts alike.

I decided to push my analysis a bit further. I looked at the documents. I took this one, The Budget Plan tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance . On page 14, we can read ``Direct budget savings''. Everybody knows, citizens asked us that, that the government's first objective is to reduce the size of the government. We absolutely must succeed in reducing the size of our governments, particularly the federal government, which is the biggest. The government must learn to withdraw, to do more with less, to reduce the size of its departments and organizations.

I tried to determine what direct savings would flow from this budget. Normally, in a budget speech like the one that was delivered yesterday, the finance minister tells us that the government will reduce its spending by three or five billion dollars. That is normally what the minister should have done, but he did not. That made me think.

I checked again and found that there will be absolutely no direct savings in the 1996-97 budget-and I use the minister's own numbers, Madam Speaker. None, and that is not much. There will be no savings in 1996-97. Zero savings, zero for the Minister of Finance. In 1997-98, the savings will reach $0.2 billion. I must come to the conclusion-and that can be checked-that the net impact of the budget on the reduction of the government's size will be nil. Zero again for the Minister of Finance.

That shows that the government is unable to reduce its own expenditures. But you will object that according to the estimates tabled this morning by the President of the Treasury Board, there will be some budget cuts.

All these cuts result from previous budgets. As he is used to, the finance minister announced long term programs. We hear about cuts, but they will apply only next year. The cuts he talked about last year will show up this year in some departments. This year, the minister tells us that he is not cutting, which means that he considers he has finished downsizing the government. To me, that shows a considerable lack of imagination.

After realizing that he had not cut spending, I decided to find out what he himself said in praise of his budget. I checked the document giving an overview of the 1996 budget. These documents from the Minister of Finance are quite interesting. In the first section of this document, the finance minister and his government talk about "securing our financial future". This is interesting. What they fail to say is that we will be paying for a long time. Let me explain.

First of all, they say that the deficit will be cut to about 3 per cent of GDP, as though this 3 per cent was the ultimate objective, the philosopher's stone. Our spending will be cut to 12 per cent of GDP, which, according to the Minister of Finance, is a great achievement. So 3 per cent of GDP, 12 per cent of GDP, and then next year's goal is to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP.

I, however, looked at a different set of figures. This looked interesting. Like many others perhaps, I thought that the minister had done a terrific job and was on the right track, and then I looked at some other figures. The reality is this: Canada's debt exceeds $600 billion, or $20,000 per Canadian. This is quite something. I am not talking about 3, 2 or 15 per cent of GDP, but about the debt that we will have to pay: $600 billion, or $20,000 for every Canadian man, woman and child. Most interestingly, since this hon. Minister of Finance took the helm two and a half years ago, he has added $110 billion to the debt-as I figured out with my friend, the Bloc Quebecois' financial expert.

In the last two and a half years, this minister who brags about a budget with nothing in it has increased the debt by $110 billion, or $3,700 for every Canadian man, woman and child. Did you realize that, since the Minister of Finance took over this portfolio, he has borrowed or incurred a debt of $3,700 for every Canadian-for everyone of us in this House, for every person listening to us, for every member of our families, for each of our children and grandchildren, for everybody we know. That is a huge amount of money.

I looked at another figure that is more significant than the 12 and 3 per cent of GDP. Thirty-six cents out of every dollar we pay in taxes-and we know what a tax dollar means-go to service the debt, to assume our collective responsibility for this debt.

How can the Minister of Finance submit a budget he claims to be proud of? How can he brag and say: "You see, we are reaching our goals"? The finance minister thinks he is a good manager who meets his targets, but his figures are meaningless for Canadians, considering that, in the last two and one half years, his government put them $110 billion deeper into debt, for a total of $600 billion, that it put an additional burden of $3,700 on each of them, bringing the total to $20,000 per capita, and that 36 cents of each dollar goes to the service of the debt.

I decided to go a little farther in my analysis. You will understand that I was disappointed to see the state of public finances, given what we were told by our friend the Minister of Finance. So, I went a little farther. In that same brochure, which MPs will use to sell this budget, it says: "Getting the government right". I find this rather cute. "Further action is being taken to define a more appropriate and effective role for the federal government".

There is also a reference to Parliament's effectiveness. "In the modern Canadian federation, most departments will have their

budgets cut-". Etc., etc., etc. I checked it out. I kept searching. I certainly did my homework, Madam Speaker. I consulted a brochure tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on the role of the state.

I expected, like most Canadians I am sure, to learn that the federal government would withdraw from certain areas, given that it is involved in numerous fields that do not come under its jurisdiction, that it does not even comply with its own Constitution in that regard, that it is way too big, cumbersome and loaded down with debts, that it has difficulty making good decisions, and that it is overburdened by its bureaucracy. I would have expected the government to say that it would withdraw from certain areas. We could have expected the federal government to give back to the provinces the areas of jurisdiction that belong to them, to put an end to all the duplication and to totally abolish some of the services, which are provided by some departments that have no business providing them, and which duplicate services provided by other levels of government.

I found some real gems in this document. According to this action plan, the objectives of the federal government are to: "strengthen our economy and economic union to ensure a prosperous country for ourselves and our children-that is so nice; enhance social solidarity in Canada-in preserving and modernizing the social union so that the caring and sharing society is truly Canada-wide in scope-this is really fine; pool our national resources to achieve common goals efficiently and effectively; protect and promote Canadian values and identity while celebrating our diversity; and defend Canada's sovereignty and speaking for Canadians collectively on the world stage".

I found in the document a lot of principles and a lot of things that look quite trivial when you read them in a brochure like this one. However, when you know about the federal government's propensity to centralize and to interfere in areas of jurisdiction where it should not get involved, I think you are right to worry about the centralizing hidden behind all these nice principles.

So, I reread the throne speech, the budget speech, and realized something: the throne speech indicated that "the federal government would not intervene in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction". One must know the real meaning behind these words. "The federal government would not intervene in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without-"

[Securities, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the government admit that the establishment of a federal securities commission will amount to putting the Quebec securities sector in a sort of trusteeship, despite the opposition of all interested parties in Quebec, including federalist Quebecers?

[Securities, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, arrogance never got anyone very far.

The throne speech indicated that the federal government would not intervene in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Is there anyone in the government who can tell me whether it might finally admit that its proposed approach, particularly in the area of financial institutions and in other areas, as indicated in the throne speech, will inevitably lead to Quebec's isolation?