Yvan Loubier

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget which he brought down yesterday-if we can still call what is left of it a budget-the Minister of Finance projected a record deficit of nearly $40 billion. Considering how accurate Finance Department forecasts are, it is possible that the deficit could be much higher than $40 billion. In fact, in the 1992 budget, revenues were overestimated by $11 billion, and in the 1993 budget, by $10 billion. A slight discrepancy, would you not agree. In point of fact, for the past two years at least, government revenues have been declining, while the underground economy has been thriving. Consequently, tax revenue forecasts have been completely thrown off.

How can we take the Minister of Finance seriously? How are we supposed to take a stand-up comic seriously when he announces an already record deficit of nearly $40 billion, given that he arrived at this figure by overestimating revenues, like his predecessors, when in fact he knows full well that for several years now, tax revenues have not been growing at the same rate as the economy.

[The Budget, February 22nd, 1994]

I would ask my colleagues opposite to show us a little respect, just as we show our respect for them every day.

There is something even more shocking about this budget, and I will tell you what it is. With this budget, the Minister of Finance, who in reality controls human resources development in Canada, has just put a straightjacket on the Minister of Human Resources Development. He has accomplished this by committing him to save $7.5 billion through social program reform over the next three years. Various income security programs will be reformed and outrageous changes will be made to the unemployment insurance system, changes which he criticized the pre-

vious government for making. In other words, he is saying right from the start to the Minister of Human Resources Development, even before the committee undertakes its work, that savings of $7.5 billion will have to be realized over the next three years. Is that what the government calls restoring fiscal equity?

Is this what the government calls restoring social justice in Canada? In point of fact, it is attacking those who are most in need, namely the least fortunate, those who are, in large part, victims of the previous government and who are being further victimized by the current government.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Leader of the Official Opposition was right. When the government party speaks about reforming social programs and health care programs, what it is really talking about is making cuts. Today, we have irrefutable proof of this.

Middle income taxpayers and senior citizens certainly deserved a tax break, but the Minister of Finance is not giving them one with this budget. What about those who are unemployed and the most disadvantaged? A total of 1.5 million Canadians are out of work. The 437,000 Quebecers who are out of work were expecting genuine job creation initiatives in this budget, not merely stopgap measures such as the infrastructure program which will create 45,000 part-time jobs. They were hoping for real job creation initiatives.

This budget gives us no reason at all to hope. Aside from the nice speeches and nice smiles from the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, there is nothing in this budget to help the 1.2 million Canadians who are currently waiting for social housing and who spend more than 50 per cent of their income on housing. Nice speeches are all well and good, but when the time came to restore $600 million in funding for social housing, an issue over which they tore a strip off the previous government, their nice words did not translate into concrete action. All we are left with are nice smiles and nice speeches about social justice in Canada. That is what Quebecers and Canadians hate in politicians. That is why Quebecers and Canadians are cynical towards politicians and political institutions. It is because of a lack of courage, a lack of long-term vision that Quebecers and Canadians are feeling alienated from politicians' promises.

Not only does this budget not include anything that the government should have done, but its spending reduction targets are ridiculous. In the next three years, there will be no spending cuts in nominal terms.

I have the feeling that this government is living on another planet, that it is not aware of Canada's excessive debt, which puts it in first place about everywhere in terms of poor performance. I get the impression that this poor performance and this government are two totally disembodied things.

The Minister of Finance said that we would blame them for not going far enough. We will not blame him for not going far enough, but we will blame him for not doing what he should have done, and that is even more serious.

We will blame him for sparing, once again, the government's rich friends. But Quebecers and Canadians are starting to grasp this government's vision.

I therefore move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Budget, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why is Liberal government is so pleased. I do not understand why the colleagues of the Minister of Finance are so pleased, because bringing down a budget that is practically meaningless is certainly nothing to be proud of. And there is certainly no reason to be proud of this year's deficit forecast of $39.7 billion, nearly $40 billion.

Considering past experience, it would not be unusual, in the light of the quality of the forecasts produced by the Minister of

Finance and his department, for this deficit to go over $39.7 billion. So there is nothing much to be proud to start with.

If we look at the tax revenue estimates, it is clear the Minister of Finance is making the same mistakes as his predecessor. He is still living in the middle 1970s and early 1980s, when tax revenues were growing at the same rate as GDP.

For instance, it is expected that every 1 per cent increase in GDP will result in an increase of more than 1 per cent of GDP, that is 1.2 per cent. The Conference Board of Canada has just released a study which says that every time there is a 1 per cent increase in GDP, tax revenues increase by only 0.5 per cent because of the growing impact of the underground economy. This is something the Department of Finance has completely blocked out, which tells me and my fellow members of the Bloc Quebecois that these estimates are off to a bad start.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are also beginning to realize, what the Minister of Finance meant when he talked about broadening the tax base. The Minister of Finance and his government are broadening the tax base by slashing the incomes of the middle class. That is where he wants to broaden the tax base.

A few examples: Over the next three years, by taxing employer contributions to various group life insurance plans, the Minister of Finance plans to get at least $520 million, one half billion out of middle income workers.

Another instance is when he talks about reducing or altogether eliminating the age credit for retired taxpayers. The Minister of Finance is broadening the tax base at the expense of pensioners and, over the next three years, plans to get almost $500 million in the process. He says that 75 per cent of pensioners are not affected. But 25 per cent are affected. Do these people deserve this, after having worked all their lives?

There is a third measure which shows the Minister of Finance and his government have no social conscience. Over the next three years, they want to get $740 million by reducing deductions for entertainment expenses, but according to a study released by Ernst and Young not long ago, about 80 per cent of the people that take advantage of this deduction are not rich taxpayers but middle income taxpayers, mostly self-employed, and even blue collar workers.

I repeat, this government wants to get $740 million over the next three years, mostly out of the pockets of self-employed and blue collar workers, and that is a disgrace.

These and many other measures are widening the already impressive gap between personal income tax paid by Canadians and Quebecers and taxes paid by Canadian corporations. Whe talk about corporations, we mean the big corporations.

Did we know that individuals in Quebec and Canada are already paying seven times as much income tax as the big corporations? Did we know that 72.5 per cent of the federal tax base consists of revenues from private citizens and 27.5 per cent of revenues from corporations? Twenty-five years ago, it was already twice the tax revenue contributed by corporations. Today, the measures tabled by the Minister of Finance are further broadening this unfair gap between what is paid by private citizens and what is paid by corporations.

With all the posturing on family trusts and tax shelters, why did the Minister of Finance fail to announce in his Budget that he was abolishing the disgraceful system of family trusts and the possibility for large corporations to shelter their money in tax havens like Barbados, for instance?

It is almost beyond comprehension that the Minister of Finance would immediately set out to attack middle-income earners through the imposition of specific measures over the next three years, while leaving unscathed wealthy taxpayers and large corporations that did not pay any taxes at all in the late 1980s and that continue to rob the tax system today. This is really rich!

The minister has not deviated from the path he initially embarked upon. Since October 26, his statements about restoring fiscal equity in Canada and in Quebec have been nothing but pious wishes. All he will commit to is consultation and more consultation. It has become his new mantra, almost as powerful as the one he adopted during the election campaign when he spoke of "jobs, jobs, jobs". The thing is, this budget contains no additional job creation measures. On the contrary, the government's tax grab over the next three years will hinder any chance for a lasting recovery and for job creation in Quebec and in Canada. This is unacceptable for a government that has been claiming from the beginning that it is concerned about job creation. I am completely baffled by this, as are my colleagues.

[Budget, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the Deputy Prime Minister's question, because it happens to be the same question we have been asking her government and the Minister of Finance since January 17.

Does the government intend to get the money where it is to be found, in other words, from Canada's big corporations which have not paid a penny in taxes since 1987, even when their profits are sky-high, and from the wealthiest Canadian families that use family trusts to avoid paying taxes? That is where the billions to cover the shortfall in the government's annual budget could be found.

Does her government intend to cut in those areas and spare middle income Canadians?

[Budget, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the last stretch before the budget, all the signs are there that this government, which listens to the people, or so it says, will ignore the interests of Canadians and increase the tax burden on middle income families.

My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would she agree that the direction her government appears to be taking goes against the very principles of fiscal fairness and economic recovery it apparently wants to defend?

[The Budget, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having a little fun myself next Tuesday.

Just days before the budget, I ask the minister again, can he reassure families in Quebec and Canada by denying rumours of tax hikes for middle-income taxpayers, rumours of taxes on group insurance plans and rumours of a lower ceiling on RRSPs?

[The Budget, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with the tabling of the federal budget just days away, concerns are being voiced from all quarters about possible tax increases as well as the elimination of certain tax provisions benefiting middle-income families.

Is the Minister of Finance aware that middle-income taxpayers have been overtaxed for ten years? Can he reassure them by promising to spare them this time around?

[International Trade, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade agrees with our views.

My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Would it not be desirable for the Prime Minister to personally inform the President of the United States of Canada's interests and concerns?

[International Trade, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, we witnessed the unfortunate breakdown of trade negotiations between the United States and Japan. If the verbal escalation degenerates into a real trade war between those two countries, Quebec and Canada will likely be adversely affected.

My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Is the minister not concerned by the adverse effect this conflict could have for Quebec and Canada?

[Budget, February 14th, 1994]

That answer is brief and to the point. Mr. Speaker, does this means that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its representatives are not credible?

In response to all our questions, the Minister of Finance keeps repeating: Wait for the budget. Given that the minister made these statements to the Canadian Federation, will he not acknowledge that it is totally unacceptable for him to reveal this kind of information to lobbyists outside this House, not to mention that it shows contempt for members of Parliament and for the people of Quebec and Canada?