Michel Gauthier

[Social Program Reform, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that several provinces were joining forces to defeat Ottawa's plans to centralize social program reform.

In light of this revelation and further to the insulting comments of the Prime Minister who, on Wednesday, described traditional demands as whims, the National Assembly passed a unanimous motion yesterday confirming Quebec's position, on which all sides agree, to the effect that exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training should be transferred to Quebec.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the decision to cancel the meeting is a step backward and a sign of bad faith as well as a reflection of the serious unease between the provincial and federal governments, all because of Ottawa's centralizing aims?

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 1994]

I would have a question for you, Madam Speaker.

We are satisfied with the decision just rendered and the agreement just made in this House. Nevertheless, for our future guidance, I gather from your decision that the indicative lists of speakers that we provide you are no longer useful and are worthless. We have always been opposed to providing the Chair with a list of members who should speak in the question period during debate.

I must conclude from your decision that these lists are no longer useful in our work and that members will have to ask for the floor as the debate proceeds. That is how I understand your decision. I would like you to enlighten me on that, because we will not make a list just for the fun of it. We will proceed differently in future.

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I understood the Secretary of State to say that he allowed the debate to resume. So, quite simply, that means the government no longer objects.

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It has always been my impression that the goal of this House is to allow members to speak on issues put before Parliament by the government. In this particular instance, I would point out that in order for the debate to flow smoothly, insofar as the translation in both official languages is concerned, the Chair must co-operate with members and show considerable understanding, and vice-versa.

As far as this particular debate is concerned, members were prepared to speak. That includes members of our party and of the other party as well. My colleagues indicated to me that they were somewhat unclear on the approach taken to this debate. They did not understand exactly at what point in the proceedings the Chair was and they wonder if perhaps the Chair could not have been a little more tolerant toward the members who wanted to speak on this subject, in particular the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, even though apparently they had missed their opportunity to do so.

I think one thing should be made clear. We need your co-operation to ensure that the proceedings flow smoothly, as the government needs ours. The smooth running of Parliament depends on this mutual trust. Tricks should not be played on members and the Chair should not move hastily to ask if someone wishes to speak and when no member rises immediately, move on to something else. We know that the Standing Orders require that we ask for the floor. We have an agreement which works very well for Question Period. Members do not have to clamour to be recognized. The Speaker proceeds in a specific order. Some customs in this House cannot be overlooked. If my colleagues were to understand from your decision that they must now rise and shout in order to be recognized, then the complexion of this House could change rather dramatically.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your decision and allow our colleagues to speak. Our goal is not to muzzle members, but to give them an opportunity to speak.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak in this House and it is a privilege that most of us appreciate. However, it is sad that we sometimes have to speak on a measure that would impose cuts on the most needy in our society.

A few months ago, we would never have thought that we would see the implementation of a budget whose main thrust is to hurt and injure the unemployed. Our hopes were high and we thought that the creative mind of the Minister of Finance would lead him to choose the best mix of solutions to control the deficit and put the government's finances back in order.

Our present finance minister is no better than the Liberal Minister of Finance we had when our Prime Minister was himself Minister of Finance and beat all the records for increased deficits during his term.

One would have thought that a few years of reflection in the opposition, a few new faces, some ideas mentioned in the so-called red book would have given the Liberals a broader and more humane vision of the problems our society is confronted with. But no, the recipes are the same old ones. We blamed the Conservative government for its erroneous forecasts, we said that its finance minister was disconnected from reality, that he did not understand a thing about the workings of the economy, that his measures were counterproductive and that they were wreaking havoc instead of helping put our house back in order.

We went from bad to worse. The last budget was produced by an amateur, who made forecasting errors estimated at several billion dollars. He is an amateur who, oblivious to the influence of a finance minister's statements on financial markets, toyed with the value of our dollar and the nerves of the financial leaders. He is an amateur whose only solution to reducing the deficit was to attack the most needy members of our society.

Some of my colleagues who took part in this debate have given some really pathetic examples. With the human misery we see nowadays, when 20, 22 per cent or more of the population are jobless in some areas, our Minister of Finance, a man of original mind who was promising us the moon, has found a magic solution. He will cut UI benefits and shift the unemployed on to the welfare rolls.

When I asked a question of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister, I was flabbergasted to hear them both candidly tell us: Well, we will cut unemployment insurance and take that money to create jobs, and the unemployed worker, instead of receiving UI benefits, will be going to work. That sort of reasoning does not stand up. If they do believe in their own job creation strategy, we have an alternative formula for them. Why did they not create jobs first and cut unemployment insurance

afterwards? That is what the Minister of Finance should have done but did not do, and that is why we cannot accept these measures attacking the poorest members of our society.

In the exclusive club of the finance minister's friends, it is obvious that the easiest way to get back on the road to prosperity is to slash transfer payments to individuals in the budget. Keep shifting your problems onto the shoulders of the provinces. What a nice federation, really, what a nice confederation this is. Talk about responsible government. Keep unloading your problems onto the provinces, as if provincial deficits did not matter. Some people find this situation funny. But, Madam Speaker, is it not the height of irresponsibility to be laughing and making fun when the House is about to vote a bill that will cut benefits for the poorest in our society. You really have to be irresponsible to keep laughing when the government is about to dump the unemployed onto welfare rolls.

The minister quoted employment statistics. Do you know why unemployment is dropping? Because people are so discouraged they do not even want to say they are looking for a job. There is no hope in this country for the young, for seasonal workers, for people who can usually earn a living by working five or six months a year. There is no hope left for those people. They no longer say that they are looking for a job. The worst part is that the young are the most severely affected by this unfortunate reform by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government. Those young people have no hope.

Somebody said that the best way to kill a man is to keep him from working. The Minister of Finance is sacrificing future generations because of his lack of originality, his inability to come up with new and dynamic solutions, his inability to attract social activists, entrepreneurs, unions, business people, merchants, people with ideas to develop. The Minister of Finance failed to create consultation forums from which the original ideas he was unable to have could have emerged. It was much too difficult, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Finance traveled across Canada. He met all his friends, economists, experts, people from different backgrounds, but he was unable to create a dynamic of social consultation which would have helped us find new and original solutions. He wants examples? A simple one springs to mind: it is Corvée habitation , a Quebec housing program which lasted a few years. It was a marvellous program which associated unions, entrepreneurs, business people and citizens around one same cause, the pursuit of a noble aim, to put people to work and to stimulate the economy. It was the finest example of a group assuming its responsibilities for the unemployed and people who are suffering. But because he acted irresponsibly, the Minister of Finance did not get to know these original solutions. If he really believes what he says, why did he not create jobs first and reduce UI benefits after? No, Madam Speaker.

Time is a detail for a technocrat like the Minister of Finance. The period of time during which an unemployed 25 year-old man with two children exhausts his UI benefits and has to go on welfare before he finds another job three or four years later is a technical detail for a technocrat like the Minister of Finance. It is an inhuman approach.

We cannot agree with such a piece of legislation. It is immoral to propose such measures in the House. How do you expect us to be able to show our faces in our ridings? How do you expect our fellow citizens to believe in the work that is being done here, when these people opposite promised jobs, jobs and jobs throughout the election campaign? The first steps that were taken were not creating jobs, but creating more poor people. This government will have created the greatest number of poor people; it will win the championship not for creating jobs, but for creating poverty. That is what this government will have done. That is what this minister of Finance will have done, a minister without ideas, without imagination, incapable of consulting people, incapable of taking his role seriously, incapable of estimating his deficit and totally incapable of evaluating the disastrous effects of unemployment insurance cuts on the poor people of Canada.

Madam Speaker, let me say to you that this budget-you are telling me that I have one minute left-will have been a terrible budget in terms of cuts. Working people are facing cuts, people who earn money, even very little, such as old people, are being targeted. The provinces are being targeted because the deficit is being shifted onto their shoulders. Everyone in Canada, all those who deal with the Canadian economy have been wrongly targeted. Here is a man without any imagination, a reform that hurts and an insensitivity that will cost you dearly one day.

[Business Of The House, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what is the planned order of business for the next few days?

[Manpower Training, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we want answers. That is what I am trying to get across to the Prime Minister.

Are we to understand from what he said that all this pussyfooting around at the expense of the unemployed in Quebec is sure proof that the federal system does not work and never will? That system is rotten because of infighting between ministers within his own cabinet.

[Manpower Training, April 13th, 1994]

Finally, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the answer came: "Not for another two years". Does the Prime Minister realize what this means? If nothing is done for another two years, $600 million will be wasted, $600 million that could have been used to help the unemployed in Quebec as well as those who are waiting for job training.

[Manpower Training, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for five years, there has been a broad consensus in Quebec on the need to repatriate all powers with respect to manpower. Five years of

amicable negotiations, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs put it, have proved fruitless.

Finally, yesterday, Mr. Speaker-

[Unemployment, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister keep defending his job-creation strategy when the bad reaction to his budget in the financial community, as well as the loss of credibility of both his finance minister and his government, are the main causes and obstacles to job creation in Canada?