Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
First of all, I would like to thank my fellow citizens of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who have put their trust in me again in the last election.
I was outraged by the speech from the throne that was delivered two days ago. It was riddled with misrepresentations, distorting reality with respect to the existence of a Quebec people, among other things.
On the subject of misrepresentation, I would like to focus on two elements of the throne speech: public finances and national unity.
As far as public finances are concerned, we must refer to page 4 of the throne speech, which reads, and I quote, “This 36th Parliament opens at a time when we have brought order to our public finances”. The speech goes on to say “The government will continue to be vigilant and responsible about keeping the financial affairs of the country in order”.
I almost fell backwards when I read that, because the Minister of Finance has been anything but responsible in his last three budgets. The Minister of Finance can boast about our public finances being in order. Credit must be given where credit is due, but the fact is that the credit should go not to the federal finance minister, but to his provincial counterparts, especially Mr. Landry, of course. Why? Because they are the ones who had to do his “dirty job”. He did not do a thing to bring about the conditions that will result in a zero deficit as early as next year.
Fifty four per cent of federal spending cuts were made in social programs. The Minister of Finance cut $4.5 billion from federal transfers to the provinces for education, health and social assistance. This represents a $1.3-billion shortfall for the Quebec government. Fifty-four per cent of the cuts were made in that area.
Yesterday, the finance minister replied to a question from a Reform Party member on taxes. The other major contribution made to bring order to our public finances is the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians. Since 1994, the Minister of Finance has let tax revenues increase by $23 billion. That money comes from taxpayers' pockets. The minister is now talking about $2 billion in targeted tax cuts. This is the least it can do after collecting an additional $23 billion since 1994. Taxpayers are getting a little treat from the finance minister after years of tightening their belts.
Third, it is easy to boast about bringing order to our public finances, considering that the finance minister literally robbed workers and employers by improperly dipping into the employment insurance fund. Last year, the minister pocketed $5 billion, even though it has been years since the federal government contributed to the employment insurance fund. This year, the minister will take $7 billion from that fund. So, it is easy to boast and to brag, but taxpayers will not forget that the Minister of Finance made himself look good at the expense of Quebecers and Canadians. What did the minister himself do in all this? What was his own contribution?
In the 1994 budget speech, the Minister of Finance told us that departmental spending would be cut by 19 per cent. The minister has not kept his promise. Departmental spending has been cut by only 9 per cent over the last four years. The minister has not made even half the effort demanded of those who are ill, of students, of the most vulnerable members of society, especially welfare recipients, or of those who would normally re-qualify for employment insurance, but, because of the new employment insurance policy introduced last January, find themselves back on welfare.
Here too, he can go on about how unemployment is down. Of course it is. The unemployment figures, meaning the number of people actively looking for work, have dropped, but entire families are now stuck on welfare because of the minister's new employment insurance policy, which also happens to be generating surpluses that he is using to reduce the deficit. These folks no longer show up in the official unemployment figures. This is not what being a responsible government means.
What is our charming Minister of Finance going to do with the surpluses he is generating? He will move right into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Do you know why? Because the throne speech, just like the first throne speech we heard in this House, tells us that the federal government will be barging into areas of provincial jurisdiction, including education. We are told in the throne speech that the federal government will measure the readiness of Canadian children to learn. Education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and nobody is ever going to interfere in education, which comes under our jurisdiction.
All these investments being announced in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, after what they did to Quebec's public finances in particular, have been in the works since March 1996.
If I may, I will quote the President of Treasury Board who, in the March 8, 1996 edition of Le Soleil , publicly admitted the federal government's strategy, a strategy which consisted of dumping its problems of public funding onto the provinces, getting the provinces to do the dirty work, so that it can come out looking good to all of the taxpayers.
To quote the President of Treasury Board in the March 8, 1996 edition of Le Soleil , “When Bouchard—he does not even have the decency to show a little respect for the Premier of Quebec—will have to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs”.
Such is the strategy of the federal government: to make Quebec look like the bad guy when it comes to social programs and to the health sector, when in fact they are the main ones responsible. They then come along with great fanfare to announce that they will be putting programs in place, that they will help our young people and improve the health system. Such behaviour is odious and absolutely hypocritical, particularly when it is at the expense of the least advantaged and the sick.
Our campaign platform was clear with respect to sound management of public finances, as well as the battle against poverty. Our program had six points, basically.
The first was that we were calling upon the federal government, since public finances are getting in better shape, to give back what it has swiped from the provinces, that is to say return the $4.5 billion it has stolen yearly from social programs in order to fund social assistance, postsecondary education and health. These are no small amounts we are talking about.
Just looking at the health transfers the federal government was making to the provinces in past years, for every dollar cut by the Minister of Health since he has been responsible for this sector, 93 cents were used to reduce the federal deficit. And for all of the social programs, every time a dollar was cut from social programs in Quebec, 78 cents of it were used to reduce the Minister of Finance's deficit.
This is a lot of money, and if for the past year the federal government had done its job, if it had not slashed social transfers to the provinces, the Quebec government would no longer have a deficit. The problem would have been settled long ago, and our books would have balanced.
Next, considering that the country's financial situation has improved, we asked the government to reduce employment insurance premiums. Not a cosmetic 6 cent per $100 of insurable payroll. We suggested a reduction of about 30 cent per $100. Why? For the simple reason that the Bloc Quebecois is on the side of jobs and job creation.
If the government meant what it said when it talked about job creation, it would have consistently reduced employment insurance premiums, because they kill employment. Any direct payroll tax as substantial as employment insurance premiums is bound to kill employment.
So, since the government's finances are in better shape, instead of this nickelling and diming, instead of these intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions, without so much as a by your leave, because it is so important to hand out cheques with a big Canadian flag, the Liberal government should consider what people need and put more money into the employment insurance fund and social programs.
My third point is that since the new employment insurance system came into effect last January, the benefits and usual protection for workers who lose their jobs were greatly reduced. We are therefore suggesting that the federal government, since they are in a better position financially, get back to a better approach that would genuinely help unemployed workers get back on their feet and remain on the labour market instead of being forced to go on welfare, which is no way to help families get back on their feet, especially if it keeps them out of the labour market.
The fourth suggestion we made in our campaign platform, and it is still valid, is to have a targeted tax reduction. Not the kind of generalized, useless tax reduction which does nothing to stimulate consumer buying and job creation, but targeted reductions based on a logical analysis of the tax system.
In this regard, I am particularly proud to remind people that the Bloc Quebecois conducted two major studies in the past year and a half. One was on reforming corporate taxation to make it fairer with fewer of those loopholes that allow hundreds of millions of dollars annually to avoid federal taxes.
We also put forward a document on improving personal taxation to make the system fairer and to ensure that families, especially low and medium income ones with children, get the benefit of such reform.
We repeat the suggestion to the Minister of Finance that this tax reform should take place in his second mandate. If he was too sluggish in his first mandate to implement our suggestions, which, I would point out, are currently being used by Canadian universities as a good example of tax reform, he should be delighted and accept the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois. In this mandate, however, I think that it would be a good idea for him to make the tax system fairer for lower income classes and not just for his millionaire and billionaire friends and those of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Our fifth proposal would increase tax benefits from $850 million to $2 billion, adding $1.15 billion in child tax benefits. This is a real battle against child poverty. I think that, with the developments in public finances, it is not too late for the Minister of Finance to do the right thing.
Every time I see him put his hand to his heart, I cannot help but wonder if he is feeling for his wallet. If he is really concerned about child poverty, he should be spending more in that area and make it a true national priority.
Sixth, it is not hard to understand, in fact it is quite simple: if the federal government minded its business and refrained from interfering in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, I am sure it would save money. Every time the federal government announces with fanfare plans to get involved in education, to put an education program in place, to meddle in health issues and every other area under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, that costs money. And, in spite of his financial position, the finance minister is not paying for all this, the taxpayers are.
Every instance of duplication and overlap in programs entails administration costs borne by taxpayers. Taxpayers are also paying twice for federal government employees to do the exact same job as Quebec government employees. The public must know that. That is what I mean by distorting the reality behind public finances.
Something else in this speech from the throne struck me; I was quite shaken by it. It contains, on page 7, third paragraph, a line as disgraceful as they come, in my view, and I quote, “Our future as a country is too precious for us to risk losing it through misunderstanding”.
A nation's aspiration to sovereignty is not based on any misunderstanding. It is based on this desire we share to build our own country, a country soon to be known as Quebec. There is no misunderstanding there, and it is disgraceful to suggest such a thing. This would mean that, in the referendum held in 1995, 61 percent of francophones voted yes but did so based on a misunderstanding. Seventy per cent of francophones on the island of Montreal voted yes, but did so based on a misunderstanding. Almost half of all Quebecers voted yes, but did so based on a misunderstanding.
This is probably the most preposterous statement I ever heard. If there were misunderstandings in the history of the relations between Quebec and Canada, they were on the federal side. There were of course a number of such misunderstandings, but I targeted four.
These misunderstandings go as far back as 1867. Here is the first one. In 1867, two founding nations signed a confederation agreement. At the time, it was believed that our French Canadian ancestors and the English Canadians had signed a historic accord between two sovereign nations, two founding peoples. However, over time, we came to realize that such was not the case. Over the decades, English Canada shrank the scope of this confederation agreement. English Canada will not admit at all that Quebec is different. In fact, if we look at the throne speech, we realize that it not only denies that there is any difference, but also that it denies the existence of a distinct society, a distinct culture and, more importantly, the existence of a distinct people. The throne speech reinforced this first historic misunderstanding. It is a true misunderstanding and it originates with the members across the way.
The second historic misunderstanding was to have believed that, in 1982 when Pierre Elliott Trudeau patriated the Canadian Constitution without Quebec's agreement, we would get down on our knees and agree to this Constitution that we never wanted. Quebecers stood their ground and I am proud of that. We never agreed to this Constitution.
The third historic misunderstanding, and again it originates with the members across the way, is to have thought that, in order to make amends for the historic affront of the 1982 patriation, they could toss any little scrap our way after the failure of the Meech Lake accord and we would go for it, in order to put the problem behind us once and for all, with no regard for our pride or our wish to build a strong Quebec.
They gave us Beaudoin-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards, the Spicer Commission report, and the Charlottetown accord, which was put to a referendum and defeated. They came to us with completely meaningless concepts, empty shells, such as the rather comical idea of principal homeland. Now, after the Calgary declaration, they have come up with unique character. Quebecers are not interested. Quebecers will do exactly what they did to every other meaningless offer they received concerning Quebec's future and reject it out of hand.
Mr. Bourassa had gone much further, and if Daniel Johnson agrees to bow and scrape for mere crumbs, he will go down in history as having bowed and scraped for just that, mere crumbs, putting his electioneering interests before Quebec's true interests.
There is a fourth misunderstanding and it has to do with plan B, to which the throne speech refers yet again. In Quebec, there was a time when fear was an effective tool. So was English Canada's paternalism. We will be hearing a great deal about this with four federalist parties represented in the House of Commons. But it does not work any more. Perhaps plan B could have worked at another time, but it will not now. The Supreme Court and its judges will not change the course of history. We will repel any attack on the territorial integrity of Quebec. And no minister of intergovernmental affairs or member for Saint-Maurice will be able to slow down or stop the people's march toward sovereignty.
There was no misunderstanding in nearly winning the last referendum on sovereignty. There a clear desire to build our own country in Quebec. I have a word of warning for those across the way who may be tempted to crow over the results of recent polls. These polls are no referendum, but let me tell you that, when one is called, Quebecers will speak. They will speak loud and clear and, this time, the will say yes for real and that will be the last referendum in the history of Canada.
I would now like to address my Canadian friends in their own language, if I may.
The only way for our common future is not the status quo but the independence of Quebec, a new relationship, a new partnership with Canadian citizens.
Whether or not you want this partnership does not change anything. Nothing will stop the determination of my people, the Quebec nation, to reach liberty, to become a sovereign country. The next referendum will be the right one.
Neither your political representatives, Liberal, Conservative, Reform or NDP, nor the judges of the Supreme Court will change anything. You could not force 7 billion Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their desire.
Our aspirations are legitimate and deeply democratic. They do not rely on justice to be planned. The respectable attitude of Tony Blair, Prime Minister of United Kingdom, with Scottish and Welsh people must be for you a source of inspiration.
In the meantime, I would encourage my fellow Quebecers to contemplate sovereignty and heed the advice of Félix Leclerc, who once said, and I will close on this: “The fruit is ripe in my country's orchards. This means that the time has come, if you get my drift”. I am convinced that Quebecers will heed Félix's advice in the next referendum.
