Yvan Loubier

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this part of Bill C-17 and the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, that is, to designate a parliamentary committee to review the operation of this section on a permanent basis.

This section deals with the federal-provincial tax agreements on the Canada Assistance Plan, in particular the freeze on federal contributions to the CAP.

The Canada Assistance Plan has often been the subject of harsh criticisms, which were quite justified in some respects, especially since the CAP is a shared-cost program where costs are split 50-50 between the federal government and the provinces.

The main criticism expressed in recent years is that this formula favours the richest provinces, which can invest in assistance programs and initiatives in the hope that the federal government will pick up half the costs.

I can tell you that the changes made by the previous government were rather fair in some respects and more socially equitable or democratic that those of the current government, which calls it a general freeze.

What the Conservatives did is freeze federal contributions to the CAP for Canada's three richest provinces, and with good reason. Contributions were frozen for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

Then the Liberal government comes to office and decides to freeze contributions for all Canadian provinces, whether rich or poor.

So I would say to you that the Liberal government is less liberal than the previous Conservative government. I would say that it is like what we have been getting since the morning of October 26, under the cover of social democracy or even socialism, in some respects. Rules that are not quite social democratic are imposed on us. As was mentioned in the previous debate, we are forced to put up with an attitude that is not quite open and not quite fair when it comes to equity between the provinces, for example, or fiscal equity in general.

Madam Speaker, just capping CAP and funds for post-secondary education will cost the Canadian provinces at least some $2 billion in 1995-96 alone.

I was telling you about the federal government passing the buck to the provinces because of the inability of this government, like its predecessor, which was strongly denounced by members of the present government, to regain control of the public finances in a responsible manner, not by shifting financial problems to the provinces as they have been doing since the morning of October 26, and when it is not the provinces, sovereigntists are blamed for the poor economic situation or the bad state of Canada's finances; sovereigntists are accused of creating instability and causing high interest rates, although it is the present Minister of Finance who cannot properly manage Canada's finances without passing the buck to the provinces, who is responsible for the economic crisis and the way the government's finances are headed for disaster.

We deplore this attitude of the present government, just as we deplored the ceiling on equalization payments when we had to debate that issue. In both cases, behind these shameless, ill-considered decisions, we find the same incompetence of those who are running this government.

In this regard, let me remind you that, in the House, we are constantly hearing government members, as well as Reform members, claim to be great Canadians while disregarding-and the debate we had on equalization is still clear in my mind-, sneezing at or dismissing offhand one of the fundamentals of Canadian federalism which is fiscal federalism. They want to limit expenses such as equalization payments, which constitute the underpinning of fiscal federalism, and they congratulate themselves for capping or freezing payments, knowing very well that they are destroying one of the fundamentals of the system for which they stand as great Canadians. That explains why the system is in total disarray.

Anyway, I think that the members of the Bloc Quebecois have made the right decision, which is to leave that system behind.

According to our motion on this clause, which limits federal transfers made under the CAP, each time a freeze, cap or cut is introduced on such basic programs, the matter would have to be debated, and the government would have to justify its support for the hateful measure and put up with our telling it that its so-called system based on equalization payments or transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan is faulty. This system attacks the provinces with impunity and it shamelessly off-loads the federal government's fiscal problems onto the provinces.

I also recommend a follow-up on these bad decisions, this government's shameful decisions, a follow-up on the impacts, because there will indeed be repercussions. To freeze all contributions to every Canadian province, including the poorest ones which are experiencing the most serious problems in terms of welfare recipients and underemployment in general and which include Quebec and the Maritimes, can only have disastrous consequences from an economic and social point of view.

This decision by the government follows another one which we will have the opportunity to debate this afternoon and which concerns the Unemployment Insurance Program where, once again, the government is prepared to totally destabilize and demoralize entire communities, particularly in Quebec and in the Maritimes, which are in no position to support such hardship.

We too could have proposed the deletion of this part of Bill C-17. However, unlike Reform Party members, we are responsible people. We know that tax agreements were signed by the provincial and federal governments and this is why we did not deem appropriate, particularly with a majority government, to ask that these clauses be deleted.

However, we are proposing transparency, honesty and, more importantly, we want this government to be accountable to the House and to Canadians for the shameful decisions it has been making since it took office, decisions which are in total contradiction with the agenda and the vision-because the Liberals think of themselves as visionaries- which it keeps referring to. I submit this amendment and ask all members to support it.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-17, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 36, on page 6, the following:

"(3) The operation of this section shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for the purpose."

[English]

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

So if Motion No. 1 is rejected, does it mean that we will vote on Motion No. 4 Monday evening?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, what about Motion No. 4? Are we going to vote on it right away or wait until Monday evening?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Motion No. 4 reads as follows in section 7:

On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be referred to such committee-

The French version, which refers to a House of Commons, Senate or joint committee, should be amended to "a committee of the House of Commons" only.

Instead of "as may be designated or established by Parliament", the French version should read "as may be designated or established by that House" to match the English text and on the last line, "changes it deems desirable" should be replaced with "whether there should be any further extensions of the compensation plans". Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

I thank the hon. member for reminding me of my technical obligations. We noticed this morning after the motion notices were printed that there were discrepancies between the English and the French versions.

The errors are in the French version. I want to move the necessary amendments with the unanimous consent of the House. In fact, they are not amendments but corrections. If we have unanimous consent, I will read them to you. I would appreciate your accepting them. So shall I read them, Madam Speaker?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on the amendments of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois grouped for debate, all the more so because this bill is very important to me.

Why do I consider it important? Because it is the perfect expression of the total lack of openness that has characterized this government ever since it came into office.

What do we find in this part? To start with, I would like to tell you that I am pleasantly surprised by the position taken by the Reform Party regarding this part of Bill C-17 because, since the beginning of the debate and even the study in subcommittee-the one which considered all the provisions of Bill C-17-the Reform Party has not demonstrated much interest in what the government has been doing to its employees. The Reform Party did not say a word on the fundamental right to open collective bargaining, a thing that the Bloc Quebecois has defended from the start.

As I said, we are pleasantly surprised because, by introducing these amendments to delete all the clauses dealing with the wage freeze in the federal public service, the Reform Party shows it is now more kindly disposed towards fundamental rights like collective bargaining. Consequently, based on the reasoning and the actions of the Reform Party this morning, we can assume that it is also more kindly disposed towards collective bargaining itself and towards workers rights, and that it would be willing to come back to the former system whereby the government and its employees would talk constructively and come to some synergic agreement on working conditions.

This means they agree with the new models introduced just about everywhere around the world which call for co-operation between public service employees and the government with a view to finding constructive solutions to controlling public finance problems and to recording yearly deficits smaller than those recorded year after year by the Canadian government.

I am surprised by this. With our motion, which would require the government to come back to the House on the expiration of the compensation provisions in the legislation to debate either an extension or changes to the provisions, we were simply trying to be realistic. We did not want to introduce one or more motions calling for the elimination of all of these provisions since the government, given its majority position, would surely vote against any such motion.

Indeed, while the Reform Party's motion goes further than our deep-seated convictions, our motion is more realistic because it calls for a democratic debate upon the expiration of the provisions in Bill C-17 respecting public service compensation. We are also asking for transparency, something which this government has not demonstrated since the start of this debate.

I will give you one example of the lack of transparency and the attitude of this government which is quickly trying to put one over on us with this omnibus bill before the House this morning. As you know, the sub-committee which considered Bill C-17 was initially supposed to hold two and a half days of public hearings. Some of the provisions in this bill, particularly those pertaining to unemployment insurance which will be debated during the course of the day, are fundamental. The government was trying to stage a reverse kind of filibuster.

The government was attempting to impose some fundamental provisions within the context of an omnibus bill, and had it not been for the actions of the Bloc Quebecois members of this sub-committee, we would not have had two weeks of public hearings during which testimony was heard from at least one hundred individuals.

Transparency will not stifle this government. A similar thing occurred with the Pearson airport bill. Here again, the government tried to hastily pass some fundamental measures, without resolving in any way whatsoever the problem with lobbyists in Canada.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois motion is about. When wage agreements between the federal government and its employees expire, let a transparent public debate be held, let the government account for the decisions that will have to be made and let the whole world see that while this government may be new, it is totally out of date with regard to the relationship it wants to establish between its employees and their managers.

That is not how things are done now. Imposing is no longer an option; and whether we agree with the idea of a wage freeze or not has nothing to do with the matter. But imposing a wage plan upon public servants in a dictatorial fashion will have disastrous effects.

First, it will demotivate workers. Second, it is gagging union representatives. You know that these people have things to say, and a job to do, as they have demonstrated in the past.

I was pleasantly surprised in early February, before the government even tabled its budget, to see public service unions volunteer to make sacrifices that often went far beyond a simple wage freeze like the one now imposed upon them. They came up with positive ways of reducing the annual deficit, increasing efficiency in the federal administration and achieving that wonderful meeting of the minds which we see in many regions in the world yet is totally non-existent here because this government is out of touch and out of date.

It prefers to avoid confrontation, like the Prime Minister is doing with the Constitution issue, rather than face the real issues, rather than make real decisions in consultation and, I might say, in a spirit of brotherly love.

That is what the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is about. We want to force a public debate not only on public servants' wages but on wage costs as a whole, the efficiency of the government machine and even suggestions made by the unions.

So, with our motion, the House would debate the issue anew upon the expiration of the wage provisions in the budget and, as I mentioned before, if we had not been so concerned about being realistic and had not considered the fact that this government shamelessly takes advantage of its majority to always have its way, we would have introduced, probably with respect to the Bill C-17 clause on public service compensation, motions similar to those of the Reform Party.

But, because we want to be realistic, we know very well that such motions would probably be defeated by government members. Therefore, we have proposed a very realistic motion, which is likely to be approved by the Liberal members, if they are really concerned about transparency and democracy.

By voting against our motion, they will confirm that the government has something to conceal, that it lacks the political will, that it has no vision, and that it could not care less about civil servants, about the state of our public finances, and even about the improvements that we could all make to the government system which is cumbersome, outdated, and rigid, just like the members of this government.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 3, the following:

"(7) On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by that House for the purpose of reviewing the administration and operation of this Act and the committee shall undertake a comprehensive review of the administration and operation of these provisions and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken or within such time as that House may determine, submit a report to that House thereon including a statement on whether there should be any further extensions of the compensation plans.

(8) There shall be no extensions of the compensation plans to which subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2) apply before the House has considered the report submitted under subsection (7)."

[The Economy, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that instead of looking for scapegoats everywhere, he should look at his finance minister who, because of his weakness and lack of political courage, refuses to make real decisions to restore the nation's finances, create employment and give people confidence in the Canadian economy again?

He is the real culprit, Mr. Speaker.

[The Economy, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continually blames the opposition and sovereigntists for all economic woes, for the poor labour market and the sorry state of the nation's finances. The finance minister's irresponsible statements, erroneous forecasts concerning the 1993-94 deficit and anemic budget have had a major, very negative, costly impact on the economy and on financing Canada's public debt.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the irresponsible statements of his Minister of Finance and his budget's lack of credibility are the real reasons that Canadian interest rates are higher than American rates and that since his budget was tabled, this differential has cost Quebecers and Canadians thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars?