Yvan Loubier

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

There is also another message that we could send to the federal government, given what we heard at the finance committee. We could certainly add another message. Some Canadian provinces want national standards; they want standards for everything. The federal government should meet with these provinces and determine the standards with them and with all the Canadian groups outside Quebec who want such standards. Let them choose and implement the standards, but they should leave Quebec alone. That is the second message we want to convey to the government about Bill C-76 and the Canada health and social transfer.

There is another point we must make in the context of this bill and it concerns the Crow's benefit. That benefit raised passions in Quebec in the past. Do you know why? Because, in 1982, another Liberal government was in office at the time and they understood strictly nothing about that issue. I remember that, in 1982, the actual minister of International Affairs was responsible for the Crow's Nest rate issue in Quebec. He was the only french speaking member of the group who could understand what a crow, a nest and a train were. At least, it was a beginning.

There was a terrible fight in 1982. Do you know why? Because the Crow rate, a grant for western grain transportation, a preferential rate structure for the shipping of grain products from the prairies to the various export points, was established in 1897.

Since 1897, we have built a balance between east and west, between grain production in the west and livestock production in the east, especially in Quebec. We also grow grain in Quebec, but mostly for animal feed, while in the west wheat is grown for export. This balance evolved over the years: grain in the west, livestock in the east.

When you eliminate the preferential rate known as Crow's Nest, when you eliminate the subsidies paid year after year by the federal government to railway companies, to allow them to charge below cost, you are breaking the balance. The disappearance of the preferential rates will mean a local price for grain in the west that is $8 to $15 a metric tonne below the international price.

Do you know what that means? It means that by breaking the balance you are giving a competitive advantage to western producers who, with a price for grain of $8 to $15 a metric tonne lower than the international price, will be able to produce more meat animals. This situation is accepted by eastern producers and in particular those in Quebec. They reason that things have changed since 1897, and they accept that the subsidized rates known as the Crow's Nest rates must disappear.

However, we should not go too far. That is the way it was in 1982 and that is the way it is today, but we should not go any further. In other words, when you eliminate this advantage, you must simply do away with it and bring transportation rates to the level at which they should normally be, that is to say the real transportation cost for the hopper cars which carry grain to the various export points.

If you go beyond that, if you give a federal compensation-24 per cent of which is being paid by Quebec taxes-to increase livestock production in the west so that they can compete with Quebec hog producers, for example, we no longer agree. We cannot accept that federal money be used to help western producers compete against their Quebec colleagues. It would be totally unfair. Not only do they subsidize, but they subsidize in a big way.

They ask everybody to tighten their belts while giving $1.6 billion in compensation to western producers. And contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, this $1.6 billion is tax free, which means that, in fact, we are giving $2.2 billion to western producers in compensation for the fact that the preferential tariff is going to be eliminated within the next five years.

Nobody warned the Quebec milk producers when milk subsidies were cut, $35 million in one shot. There were no transition measures, they did not offer any when our markets were opened up under NAFTA and, afterwards, the GATT agreement which is now the World Trade Organization agreement. They did not compensate them at all. Nor did they compensate the unemployed when they cut UI funds by $2.5 billion annually.

In a period of fiscal austerity, a time when it is said that the federal system is bankrupt with a debt of $548 billion, they are ready to give what amounts to $2.2 billion to western producers. It is totally unfair because, as I said earlier, Quebec's money will be used to increase the competitiveness of western cattlemen who are going to compete with Quebec hog and beef producers. This is why we are against this part of Bill C-76.

If we must amend the Crow rate, let us eliminate it and the subsidy that goes with it; we must let the free market set the tariff and leave it at that. This is what we must do when we are bled white because of the state of public finances and when everybody is asked to make sacrifices. Moreover, they do not even recognize that the elimination of the Crow's Nest rate will have considerable impacts on Quebec. According to an analysis done by Professor Garth Coffin of McGill University, Quebec will have to absorb between $24 and $46 million per year in losses because of the government's policy.

I think that the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the current Prime Minister forgot what the Crow rate did for Quebec in 1982.

It would be in their interest to remember that, because Quebec producers remind them, either here or in their riding office, of what the Crow rate means for them, of what it means for them to have their dairy subsidies cut again and again. They were asked to make greater sacrifices than other classes of population in the last budget; their dairy subsidies and various income stabilization plans were cut and they were especially concerned when our borders were opened, as we did here a bit over zealously-if you will allow me the expression-by opening our borders wider than anywhere else in the world. Americans, who are in favour of free trade in the milk industry, are the second most protectionist in the world after Japan. That is something.

Madam Speaker, I have only a few minutes left, but I would like to add a last point. Veterans affairs is another issue that I consider important. Bill C-76 contains clauses that are hitting veterans very hard, but even more so their families. Speaking of veterans, we can go back to World War I or II, but we must not forget those who fought recently. Soldiers were sent by the federal government to represent Canada in peacekeeping forces and some of them died while in the performance of their duty. Their families however must go on with their lives.

Concerned with justice, my colleague and friend, the member for Châteauguay, presented amendments to Bill C-76 to prevent the federal government from acting unjustly towards them. His colleague for Chicoutimi made a brilliant plea in favour of the amendments yesterday. I thank him for that, since the member for Châteauguay had pressing obligations elsewhere. Yesterday, the member for Chicoutimi presented the analysis made by the member for Châteauguay and I will comment on it, since the Bloc Quebecois considers that in no case must a budget lead to social injustices, as this measure would do for veterans.

Briefly, in Bill C-76 the government gives up its obligations and commitments towards veterans despite historical promises made on their honour by this government and its predecessors. The government knows very well that these cuts will add to the plight of the families of these veterans and force them to turn to other public services, provincial in this case, for the help they need. Someone said earlier that the federal government had become an expert at shovelling. Well, this is another case of shovelling.

This government not only shows disrespect for veterans, their memory, their families and all they had to go through, but it passes on to Quebec responsibilities which were initially that of the federal government. For example, clause 42 of Bill C-76 amends the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act. This amendment is the first step in the gradual elimination of a benefit giving children of deceased veterans a chance to pursue their studies. The 85 orphans who presently receive this benefit are all, except one or two, children of deceased soldiers who participated in Canadian peacekeeping missions. We are not talking here about the two world wars but about recent peacekeeping missions in which Canadian soldiers died.

Not only did those children lose their fathers who died while defending peace, democracy and freedom, but they are now being deprived of a chance to further their knowledge. According to Bill C-76, students who were receiving the benefit up to the day the budget was tabled will continue to be entitled to it, but the department will accept no further applications. In 1993-94, that assistance program cost $315,803. It is not so much, but that is the Minister of Finance's great initiative, his masterpiece.

Not only are the poorest in our society being attacked, but now the children of those who lost their lives fighting for peace are being attacked also. We oppose this. Clauses 68 to 72 amend the War Veterans Allowance Act by putting an end to the payment of allowances to veterans who were involved in the resistance. We are talking about allied resistance fighters who made the same contribution as official soldiers, as official armies, to bringing

about peace and freedom during the First and Second World Wars.

These clauses are aimed at gradually eliminating the allowances payable to these veterans who were military allies, who immigrated to Canada at the end of their service and who lived here for at least ten years before asking the government for assistance. The government is cutting off their allowances simply and brutally.

Clause 69 repeals sub-section 6.1 of the Allowance Act. This sub-section 6.1 provides that allied veterans who took part in the resistance will continue to receive the allowances established according to their financial circumstances, as long as these allowances were awarded on March 2, 1992 or before.

With this provision, by repealing this sub-section, the government is cutting off allowances to more than 3,000 people in Canada. This provision will also have the effect of taking away the allowances of more than 1,000 resistance veterans whose Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan benefits put them just above the income level that would normally qualify them for health care benefits.

And speaking about health care, a few weeks ago, I received a letter from people in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe that was quite meaningful and may illustrate the awful and disrespectful treatment we give to veterans and their families.

Mr. Hervé Bélanger, the secretary of branch 102 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Saint-Hyacinthe wrote the following: "The executive committee of branch 102 learned recently that veterans living in the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hotel"-veterans injured in active duty-"will have to pay more for their rooms, as rates will go from $547 to $703.80 per month this year, or a 28 per cent increase", all because of a decision taken by this government.

Do you know how much rates have gone up for these veterans since 1990? They pay 198 per cent more. But because there are very few of them, and they do not have the energy and strength to get organized, after having served their country, and in some cases lost a limb-some families were left fatherless-, they cannot get organized, their numbers are dwindling, and they are not a force to be reckoned with, so the Liberals have no use for them. The Liberals do not see them as an organized lobby, so they think nothing of slashing their assistance. This shameful slashing is taking place because they do not have names like Bronfman or Desmarais, and because Liberal ministers never visit them as they visit the Desmarais and the Bronfmans, even if it means going as far as California. So, they are not accorded fair and just treatment.

For all these reasons, not only during the vote, but also after, and during the referendum campaign in Quebec, the official opposition will strongly and firmly reject Bill C-76 as well as this government which is more centralizing than any other government-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Absolutely. No wonder this country is in such a mess.

Madam Speaker, the amendments passed yesterday by the liberal majority say the following: "The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles and objectives for the other social programs referred to in paragraph (1)( d ) that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer''. Other social programs include not only health but also post-secondary education and welfare.

First of all, what is meant by "mutual consent"?

We have heard it over the past 15 or 20 years; "mutual agreement" has meant that as soon as seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population agree, there is mutual agreement. Not only is the agreement mutual, but it becomes a Canadian consensus, no matter what Quebec believes.

This is the route we are going with Bill C-76, and the provisions regarding the Canada social transfer if they are adopted under their present form. Mutual agreement could mean the agreement of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. The federalists opposite with their blinders on will see it as a Canadian consensus. They used to be called the 74 fools. I do not know how many of them there are now, I did not count them, but I do not think anything has changed. Even they will accept that Quebec is made to toe the line if there is mutual agreement with seven provinces accounting for 50 per cent of the population.

This is what is meant by mutual agreement, it becomes a Canadian consensus and must be abided by, and it says right here that if it is not, they will cut funding. "Canada health and social transfer may be provided for a fiscal year for the purpose of-" Among the listed purposes are the following: "promoting any

shared principles and objectives that are developed, pursuant to subsection (3), with respect to the operation of social programs, other than a program for the purpose referred to in paragraph (b)."

What this means is that because these types of consensus have been arrived at through mutual agreement, as I explained earlier, if one province does not abide by these mutual agreements, these sorts of Canadian consensus, its funding will be cut in a drastic manner and without warning.

Picture this. A Canadian consensus is arrived at regarding post-secondary education, with seven provinces accounting for 50 per cent of the population, excluding Quebec, and they say: "From now on, this is the way education is going to be, and this is the route all provincial governments are going to follow". If Quebec refuses to toe the line, because of its distinct culture and because it is a distinct nation, it will lose billions of dollars in transfer payments. This is what is called co-operative federalism according to Bill C-76.

We have a suggestion to make to the government: it should immediately abolish all provisions concerning the Canada health and social transfer and, before anything else, meet with the Quebec government to discuss its withdrawal. It should withdraw from any area of provincial jurisdiction like health care, post-secondary education and welfare. It must leave those areas to Quebec. It must transfer tax points to the Quebec government as a compensation and stop annoying Quebec with those darned national standards, those Canada-wide standards.

That is what Quebec wants and that is the essence of Quebec's message.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

They certainly are. Cuts in federal transfer payments to the Government of Quebec will cost Quebec $650 million next year. This offloading of the federal deficit will mean that next year, the Government of Quebec will have a shortfall of $650 million. Ultimately, we will lose $2.4 billion because of federal decisions over which the Government of Quebec has no control.

But there is more than that in this bill. The bill contains another instance of strong arming by the federal government. This is the kind of tactic we have come to expect from the present Prime Minister who was the right-hand man of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980 and in 1981, when the Canadian constitution was patriated against an almost unanimous decision of the National Assembly to veto patriation unless Quebec's historic demands were met.

The present Prime Minister was also the chief instigator of the demise of the Meech Lake accord in 1990. No one will forget that. We all remember how he walked up and down the hallway with his cellular phone while inside, the Leader of the Official Opposition in Manitoba, Mrs. Carstairs, was taking her cues from him and doing his dirty work.

He is the one responsible for the collapse of the Meech Lake accord. Quebecers remember that too.

Now, another blow is being struck by the federal government with Bill C-76. The blow comes from our national expert, who is making his right hand man, the Minister of Finance, do his dirty work.

Bill C-76 provides for the continuance of national standards for health care and the introduction of new ones for welfare and post-secondary education. And if the provinces-for these people, Quebec is just another province-fail to comply with these standards, they will be cut off just like the unemployed and the people on welfare were cut off and like seniors soon will be.

Permit me to contradict the parliamentary secretary. No, the provinces are not being given greater autonomy. It gives me a pain in my stomach to hear talk of provincial autonomy, when welfare, post-secondary education and health are already provincial matters, within Quebec's jurisdiction. Giving greater autonomy in areas of provincial jurisdiction-now I have heard it all.

The parliamentary secretary talks of greater autonomy and greater flexibility. On the contrary. Not only will federal intrusion into areas already established by the constitution continue, but the provinces will be bound and gagged and told that, if they fail to meet the Canada-wide standards established, the government will find one way or another to cut them off, to not give them any transfer funding.

This is the sort of flexible and co-operative federalism the government is offering us with a simple bill on public finances.

When Bill C-76 was initially tabled, there was a great outcry in Quebec. Imagine setting national standards in post-secondary education for Quebecers, in particular. You can bet there was a reaction in Quebec when that came out. Quebecers were outraged. They understood that, if this bill were implemented, 75 per cent of people of Canada would be deciding about education in Quebec. Imagine the effect on the backbone of our culture, of what makes us distinct and of what makes us a people if our education were determined by the other founding people.

No people in the world would accept such conditions. It makes no sense. So here we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, our worthy representatives of Quebec,-and I see the member for Brome-Missisquoi with a smile on his lips-closing their eyes and concerns to the development of Canadian standards for post-secondary education and making Quebec toe the line on pain of being cut off. This is their idea of federalism.

Given the general outcry provoked by his initial project, the Minister of Finance, at one point-I think it was during the debate at second reading-proposed, in a move which is very unusual on the floor of the House, to table amendments following speeches by the Leader of the Opposition who opposed this measure, by the critic from Mercier and myself. He threw them out just like that, saying that they could meet Quebec's demands. We did well not to react right away because, when we received in writing the amendments which were passed yesterday by the government side, we realized that not only did the minister not solve anything but that he made things even worse. The second version was worse than the first one. They were laughing at us.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-76, which implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995.

I was listening a little while ago to the parliamentary secretary who spoke about the hearings held by the finance committee and I had the impression that we did not attend the same hearings. People did not come to tell us that they were in favour of the budget measures. They did not come to tell us that these budget measures put the country on the track that they wanted to see the government follow. On the contrary, the vast majority of witnesses said that in the last two years, since the tabling of the Minister of Finance's first budget, the federal government always targeted those in the greatest need.

What people will remember, and what they said at the finance committee hearings, is that the government, in the last two years, has continued to make cuts in what we believe to be fundamental, Canada's social programs. What people will remember of the last two budgets is that there were cuts of $5.5 billion in unemployment insurance in the first budget and that the number of weeks of benefits to which claimants are entitled was reduced by a tightening up of the eligibility criteria. That is what people will remember.

What will stand out from the last budget and Bill C-76 in the mind of Canadians is that the government went one step further. The last budget added $700 million to the $5.5 billion in cuts already announced. This is what the Minister of Finance did, and Canadians will not forget.

People will also remember the tightening of the unemployment insurance eligibility criteria, especially those who had to turn to that last resort program because they lost their job. They will remember that it is this government that tightened the

eligibility criteria and reduced the number of insurable weeks. What happened to those people? I have seen many of them in my riding office since last year and they have had to go on welfare. These people, already disheartened and depressed by the economic situation and the loss of their job, have had to apply for welfare benefits.

Do you know how many people the Liberal government is responsible for shifting from unemployment insurance benefits to welfare? In Quebec, 50,000 more people joined the already impressive ranks of the 800,000 on welfare. This is what people will remember of this government, and what they have been blaming it for since the tabling of the first two budgets.

I will also add this: for the last two quarters or so, for the last five months, no jobs were created in Canada, there was no net creation of jobs. The economy is stagnating. Do you know what that means on a technical level? It means that our economy is slowing down and that we may be headed faster than we think toward another recession. That is what this government is offering us and that is what Canadians will remember.

The measures taken by the Liberal government over the last two years have led to more poverty in Canada. Do you know that, during the last two decades, the number of poor families in our country has increased 41 per cent? Forty-one per cent in two decades.

Do you know that the poverty rate among single parent families headed by a woman exceeds 52 per cent? It is a catastrophe. A 52 per cent poverty rate among single mother families.

Do you know what that percentage is in Sweden? We tend to forget that. In Sweden, the poverty rate among single mother families is 6 per cent. Fifty-two per cent in Canada compared to 6 per cent in Sweden. There is a problem somewhere, and I understand perfectly why women in Quebec have had enough of this situation.

I understand perfectly why, two weeks ago, women have started marching to demand that their rights be recognized, to demand that they be treated fairly, to tell both the Quebec and the federal governments that they have had enough of this poverty, that they have had enough of politicians who promise them the moon during the election campaign but who, as soon as they come into office, start taking away what little bit these women have. That is what people are saying today and what women were saying when they marched on Quebec City.

Do you know what kind of hourly wage for a normal 37 1/2 hour workweek a single mother with a child needs to survive? I figured it out a few times because several women in tears came to my constituency office to tell me that they could not make ends meet. To survive, they need the equivalent of a minimum hourly wage of $10 for a 37 1/2 hour workweek.

The $8.15 minimum wage demanded by the women who marched on Quebec City was symbolic. They wanted to see government decisions take a new direction, and this was the direction they were looking for as part of a new social covenant for Quebec. They wanted the government to change its course, to review the entire income security program, and they wanted the program to include not just training but re-entry into the labour force. This was the fundamental message these women were trying to get across when they marched on Quebec City last week.

I was pleased with the response of the Quebec government. It did not take the approach that seven demands out of nine had been met. I do not want to get into a numbers game, but the important thing is the direction adopted by the government of Quebec in response to these women. The direction of the response by the government of Quebec on Sunday is more important than any numbers and that direction is clear.

One thing is certain, the Quebec government has not lost sight of the real world. We can see this in its approach to the economy and also in its compassion for its citizens. The message Sunday from Premier Parizeau was clear: the government of Quebec will work to improve the lot of the least fortunate, taking rapid and direct action in seeking to respond to all of women's demands. This is only normal, it is vital for 52 per cent of Quebec's population, the proportion represented by women. The government of Quebec will address these areas that are key to the survival of lone parent families headed by women.

The Government of Quebec will be all the better placed to meet these needs once Quebecers have decided to stop frittering away their energy arguing and complaining about the constitution, which is what they have been doing constantly for 50 years, in an attempt to carve out for themselves a decent place-nothing more than what anyone else has-just a respectable place within the system, and for all that we have tried, they not only refuse to let us take our place, but they also refuse to even recognize our differences.

Once we have settled this issue over the next few months-yes, it is a question of months-all of our energies, all of our tax money will be devoted to helping these women, and these men, the most needy Quebecers, who will be able to at least have hope that their situation will improve. I think that the message that the Premier of Quebec delivered Sunday was clear and I think that the comparison is easy to make. When we see that the Government of Quebec is holding out its hand, when we see the federal government's partial answers to the neediest women of our society, its general orientation and its actions over the past two years, I think that the situation is clear.

Just look at what Quebecers are choosing between: a federal system which has brought public finances to ruin, with a current debt of $548 billion and a forecasted total debt of about $800 billion in another four and a half years; a federal government which has introduced two consecutive budgets cutting unemployment insurance, federal transfer payments and which could eventually make cuts to the old age security system; and the Government of Quebec, which is orienting itself towards helping the neediest Quebecers, I think that the choice to be made in the fall is clear. We must get out of this system, which is all about cuts like the ones contained in the last budget and like those they are bringing in through Bill C-76, a system which will continue in that vein over the next few years.

I would like to digress and pay tribute to these women who marched on Quebec City, pay tribute to their courage, perseverance, their faith in a brighter future for Quebec and for all Quebecers. I think that they have demonstrated that if we are determined to make society a better place, if we stop depending on power hungry politicians like the ones we have faced across the way for 18 months to make a change, we can make progress. When we see people coming to Quebec City to face their politicians, who actually want things to change themselves and give people hope that things will fundamentally change under a sovereign Quebec, that is already a great victory for the women who marched all the way to Quebec City.

I had the opportunity to tell these women, when they were passing through my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe, how beautiful they are, simply beautiful, how they were beautiful in spirit and beautiful in heart. They expressed their heartfelt concerns and the Government of Quebec answered that things would change, that they could hope for a fundamental change in their case, because they and others like them should not be held responsible and made to pay for the 52 per cent poverty rate. It is inhumane. A society with any sense of dignity should be ashamed of perpetuating this poverty, especially among women who are single parents and have had to put up with this for decades.

One wonders why these women did not march on Ottawa as well. Why not? They could have marched on Ottawa, but these Quebecers realized they would be wasting their time marching on Ottawa. They would be wasting their time, because this government is bankrupt, has no vision and has shown no compassion during the two years it has been in power, despite its commitments in the red book. That is why they did not march on Ottawa.

This government gives us nothing but cutbacks. It does not talk about controlling public spending, improving the economy or improving social justice in Canada. It just keeps cutting blindly, although this will have no visible impact in four years' time. Unless this big federal machine stops overheating, billions and billions of dollars worth of cuts every year will have no impact at all.

Speaking of cuts, the latest budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, as implemented in Bill C-76, cuts away at transfer payments to provincial governments. In Quebec alone, and this we cannot accept, 32 per cent of federal transfers will be cut over the next three years. This is very serious: 32 per cent of federal transfers will be cut in Quebec.

Predictably, every time a decision is made in Ottawa, a decision over which the Government of Quebec has no control at all, in Quebec City they have to cut not only the fat but the lean as well. It may be predictable but it is intolerable that the Minister of Finance in Quebec City does not have full control over the money that comes in and the money that goes out every year.

How can you expect a government to be able to plan ahead for the next three to five years? It is impossible. Because the Canadian government cuts 32 per cent of its transfers to the Government of Quebec, the Government of Quebec is being saddled with a number of financial problems because the federal government is not doing its job. The federal government is offloading its problems with the deficit by cutting transfer payments.

The federal government is delighted when it sees a nice flag flying over an infrastructure project in which it invested 20,000 or 30,000 dollars. On those occasions, you will see not just the minister but his assistants and his parliamentary secretary right up front at the sod turning ceremony. But when it is a matter of being responsible and controlling the public spending, they are not interested.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. colleague for Châteauguay, I ask the House to give unanimous consent for my hon. colleague for Chicoutimi to propose the motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think this time it is really my turn and I am much obliged to you for allowing me to speak on the fourth group of motions on Bill C-76.

Bill C-76, as it relates to the Canada social transfer, poses a major problem to Quebec. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned again at second reading in particular, the problem is enormous. We said so during the finance committee clause by clause study of this bill. We, in Quebec, have a major problem with this bill on social transfers, because the federal government is cutting shamelessly in transfers to the provinces in the areas of social assistance, post-secondary education and health.

It is a disgrace to reduce these transfers on the backs of health care users, the underprivileged who have to rely on welfare or students, who are already among the most vulnerable groups in our society these days; just look at the number of students covered with degrees who are searching for jobs.

Quebec also has a major problem with this bill as it seems to reflect the intention to ultimately impose standards or general guidelines throughout Canada, including Quebec, in the areas of social assistance, health and post-secondary education.

During the debate at second reading, we were a little surprised when the Minister of Finance announced, out of the blue, the amendments which he was going to table to satisfy Quebec and make sure that it does not have the impression of being again the victim of strong arm tactics, like in 1981, because that is what it is.

But this is yet another attempt to isolate Quebec. Indeed, Quebec will never fit into the mould imposed by Canada-wide standards,

particularly in the education sector, which is the cornerstone of Quebecers' identity. Education is the cornerstone of the Quebec culture; it is the instrument which ensures its continuity. Consequently, Quebec will never accept to toe the line, to follow general guiding principles and even promote them, as asked by the other nine provinces and the federal government, in a sector as vital as education.

Let me go back to the Minister of Finance. He said that he was tabling amendments designed to make Bill C-76 acceptable to Quebec, as regards the implementation of Canada-wide standards. This is the last version of the bill, as tabled by the minister. It reads: "The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the provinces to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent,"-the expression "mutual consent" is never defined-"a set of shared principles and objectives for the other social programs"-these other social programs are post-secondary education and social assistance-"referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that could underlie the Canada Health and Social Transfer".

The first question that comes to mind, as I said while reading the clause, is what do we mean by mutual consent? Does it mean an amendment tabled by the Minister of Finance? If we look back at the recent past, the last 10 to 12 years of relations between Quebec, Canadian provinces and the federal government, we see that things were normally done by mutual consent, and that mutual consent could be, for example, the agreement of the federal government and seven provinces constituting 50 per cent of the population. That is what mutual consent could be, and it could be used to establish national education standards and to force Quebec to make the decision to either get in line and follow the guiding principles or national standards or to have the federal government cut off all funding. This is what it could come down to.

If that is what mutual consent means, to establish a national consensus, this bill settles nothing. On the contrary, the version revised by the Minister of Finance is even worse than the initial version, which said: "maintaining national standards, where appropriate". Now, appropriateness is not even in the picture. They will take the agreements signed by the provinces and the federal government and will impose them across Canada, without even giving Quebec a chance to say its two bits.

I must say that this is quite a sensitive issue for Quebecers, as Quebec has been strong-armed many times before, in particular in 1981, by the Prime Minister of the time who was a main player if not the band leader in the patriation of the constitution against Quebec's will, the person responsible for Quebec's isolation.

The national standards contained in Bill C-76, in the part on the Canada social transfer and research, are another example of the Prime Minister of the day strong-arming Quebec. In the history of relations between Quebec and Canada, the Prime Minister has always specialized in strong-arm tactics against Quebec. It is not surprising to see a bill like this one introduced by a Minister of Finance whose boss is the present Prime Minister and a former lieutenant of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

And it comes as no surprise to see another instance of strong arm tactics as the government tries to shove national standards down Quebec's throat, in a sector as crucial as education, when we know that the present Prime Minister led the second attempt to strong arm Quebec which led to the demise of Meech Lake in 1990. He was there with his cellular phone in the hallways on Parliament Hill, conferring with the leader of the opposition in Manitoba, Mrs. Carstairs. He was giving her his instructions on the Meech Lake Accord.

He instructed her to isolate Quebec, to make Quebecers feel they were left out. This comes as no surprise.

We are not surprised but we are amazed that this government is so blatant in its approach. It makes no bones about it. They seem to think there is nothing wrong with calling this flexible federalism: giving the provinces full jurisdiction over areas which belong under their jurisdiction in any case. We are not surprised to see this third instance of strong arming in ten years, but we are surprised to see the government drop any pretence at diplomacy and do this openly, putting everything on the table and saying that if Quebec does not like it, its funding will be cut. That means up to $7 billion could be cut annually, the equivalent of federal transfer payments for the three items I mentioned before.

Whether the government likes it or not, during clause by clause consideration of the bill in the Standing Committee on Finance, there were various representations. I would say that 90 per cent of those from the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, asked for national standards. However, all representations from Quebec, without exception, objected to setting national standards, especially in the ultra sensitive education sector.

Whether people like it or not, whether it was rejected or not in 1990, there is a distinct society in Quebec, and a distinct nation. And this people will never allow English Canada to decide what should constitute the objectives of a pillar of Quebec's cultural future. Never will Quebec permit this sort of policy to be imposed on the province on the pretext of establishing a coast to coast standard in Canada.

Never will we allow Bill C-76 to make Quebec toe the line, as the present Prime Minister has tried to do since 1980, by promising us all sorts of reforms following a "no" vote on Quebec sovereignty, but by doing the opposite. That is, he has worked to Quebec's

disadvantage over the 15 years that followed. We will never agree to Bill C-76 in its present form.

We will never allow the Canada social transfer, which the federal government has already cut by $2.5 billion, to be applied uniformly and despite Quebec's refusal to such sensitive sectors as education. We will never permit the present Prime Minister to continue his dirty deeds against Quebec, which began following the referendum in 1980, continued in 1981 with the patriation of the Canadian constitution, despite the wishes of the National Assembly, and carried on in 1990 in his work against the Meech Lake accord, which did not recognize Quebecers as a distinct people, but simply allowed us the strict minimum, a minor distinction as regards the distinct society.

We will fight the provisions of Bill C-76 with our last ounce of energy, as the purpose of this bill is to isolate Quebec as the Prime Minister has done since his arrival in politics.