Richard Bélisle

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

If the hon. member for Outremont will let me finish. Naturally, some social programs have to be maintained, but the problem is this: at this rate, certain cuts have been so poorly targeted that, if you tie program spending to debt charges and the debt continues to grow at the same rate, there will come a time, five or six years down the road, when program spending cuts to the tune of $75 billion will become necessary to match debt charges of $75 billion. The

federal government will then be paying as much on debt service as on all programs provided to individuals and the provinces. We will have a crisis on our hands. That is what this government is leading us into.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member for Outremont that what the federal government will be transferring to the provinces in terms of block financing is a thinner envelope, a teeny weeny envelope.

When I mentioned in my remarks that the federal government was adding insult to injury, I was referring to the fact that, historically, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, to have a say, you have to pay. Up until now, the federal government paid. But in the future, while withdrawing financially, thereby passing on to the provinces the dirty job of cutting back social programs, the federal government wants to continue laying down standards, national standards. That is the problem.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by drawing the attention of this House to the size of the federal government's debt and the fact that government measures have done so little to change a situation that has now become chronic. The government must balance its budget as soon as possible, because its credit is fading fast.

The 1995-96 estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance show that public debt charges now represent 30 per cent of

government spending, while 22 per cent goes to payments to persons and 16 per cent to payments to other levels of government.

The last two payments combined represent 38 per cent of total spending, barely exceeding public debt charges as a percentage of the total budget. I think it is clear we have a problem when the cost of servicing the debt is only 8 per cent less than what the federal government transfers to Canadians and to the provinces in the form of transfer payments.

Considering the decline in program spending over the next few years and the expected increase in public debt charges, we will soon reach the point where debt charges alone will exceed total transfers to persons and the provinces. In other words, a larger share of our tax dollars will go to investors and people who buy government bonds than to the citizens of this country. Is that the kind of flexible federalism the Minister of Finance wants?

It is clear that the minister's budget has done nothing to stem the growth of the debt. The deficit for the year ending on March 31 would have been $41 billion, not $39.7 billion as forecast in the last budget, if the government had not used the surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund to absorb part of the deficit. Normally, the surplus should have been applied to job creation and dealing with the structural unemployment.

The government is still putting off the real decisions until later. The cost of the public debt will increase from the $42 billion it will be at the end of this year to nearly $51 billion in two years' time.

We have to conclude that Liberal carelessness has brought this prosperous country to the brink of bankruptcy. Under the most optimistic scenario, the deficit will not be eliminated before the turn of the century. At that point, the cost of servicing the public debt will be over $60 billion. What waste and what wealth lost. Imagine what we could do with another $60 billion in the government coffers annually.

The government is adding insult to injury. It continues to invade provincial jurisdictions, but without paying any more for the programs for which it imposes national standards on the provinces. Quebec will have the unpleasant job of taxing its citizens in order to comply with the federal standards pertaining to the block funding planned by the present government.

In the end, Quebec will pay, but Ottawa will set the rules. The funding will be decentralized, but decision making power will remain in Ottawa. The federal government is not transferring any tax points in exchange for the reduction in transfer payments to the provinces. The government is doctoring the truth and putting the real decisions off until after the Quebec referendum. The federal contribution to social assistance, health care and education will drop by $7 billion in the next two years. This is a huge amount in terms of health care and education, but, unfortunately, too little to put an end to the deficit.

Overlap with the provinces will not disappear. Program review and efforts at streamlining have focused particularly on departments and agencies that are strictly under federal jurisdiction, where there was no overlap or duplication with the provinces. These departments include the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, National Defence and the Department of Transport.

The federal government is not getting out of areas under provincial jurisdiction, where little streamlining efforts have been focused. While it is chipping away the unemployment insurance program little by little, the government is imposing a temporary tax on bank capital, which will bring in $100 million over the next two years.

During this same period, the unemployed will be contributing $3 billion to deficit reduction, that is, 30 times what is being asked of the banks. This temporary tax represents only a little more than 1 per cent of the banks' annual profits, while the middle class remains overtaxed. Two sets of rules: a temporary tax on bank capital and a permanent tax of up to 50 per cent on the income of middle class families.

There is also the excise tax. The federal excise tax on gasoline is increased immediately by 1.5 cents a litre to help reduce the deficit. Why, then, wait until 1999 to reinstate the 21-year rule for family trusts? Doubtless, to enable these families to find another tax shelter. Always a double standard: one for the monied, another for the workers, the unemployed and the middle class.

The impact of the budget on Montérégie and the riding of La Prairie, which I have the honour to represent in this House, is also devastating. While the Auditor General was saying that we could save close to $1 billion if national defence were better managed, the government decides to close the base at Saint-Hubert, even though Quebec only has 15 per cent of the country's military facilities.

After losing the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, Quebec and the Montérégie region are losing the base at Saint-Hubert.

Almost 40 per cent of the inhabitants of the town of Brossard, which makes up 55 per cent of the federal riding of La Prairie, are of an origin other than Canadian. Several are recent immigrants, others are political refugees. The budget would impose a fee of $975 per adult immigration request on future immigrants. We should bear in mind that this amount is more than the average annual income in several countries. Is the government opening the door to rich immigrants only? We should ask ourselves this question. Why impose an entrance toll on people who want to come here to improve their economic situation? There is something despicable about reducing the deficit on the backs of people who have yet to set foot on Canadian soil and

whose financial situation is often unstable. Is this the image Canada wants to project as a land of welcome?

Are Canadians so powerless to resolve their deficit problem that they have to tax people who are thinking of settling here? This measure is revolting and should be rejected by Parliament.

In conclusion, I would like to add that the government's borrowing power must be limited and nearing its saturation point if we have to enforce such deficit reduction measures. It is from this perspective that we should examine Bill C-37.

[Immigration, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a move of extraordinary cynicism, the Liberal government has decided to impose what amounts to an immigration tax. The members of the Bloc Quebecois deplore this virtual tripling of the fees required upon submission of an immigration application. In addition to the basic $500, an adult immigrant will have to pay a tax of $975 to have his application considered.

This government, which has loudly proclaimed its openness to immigration, which wants to boost its citizenship profile, which produces one overblown speech after another on Canada as the country of choice for immigrants, is practicing the exact opposite of what it preaches.

The message sent by this fee hike could not be clearer: Canada is no longer interested in taking in immigrants, and is particularly uninterested in those with low incomes. It has decided to close the door and exclude those whose contribution has been and is still so important for Quebec and Canadian society.

[Main Estimates, 1995-96, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just tabled the 1995-96 Main Estimates. The Main Estimates represent a total of $164.2 billion in expenditures. The minister explained that program spending in the Budget will decline from $120.9 billion in 1994-95 to $114 billion in 1995-96 and $107.9 billion in 1996-97, a reduction of 10.8 per cent.

Where will the $13 billion in program spending saved over a two-year period be applied? It will be used mainly to finance rising debt charges which during the same two years will increase by nearly $9 billion, assuming that the economy is in good shape, inflation is practically zero and interest rates remain at reasonable levels. What we have is an increase of 20.7 per cent in debt charges over the next two years, almost twice the reduction in program spending announced by the minister.

Nearly 75 per cent of all these efforts, of all these program cuts will merely go towards servicing the debt, which will cost us more than $50 billion in charges in 1996-97.

In 1994-95, debt charges represent 33.6 per cent of budgetary revenues. In 1996-97, these debt charges will represent 36.6 per cent of budgetary revenues. Make no mistake, despite program review and previous budgetary measures, the debt marches on.

Program review merely transfers billions of dollars from Canadian citizens to investors who finance a debt that is increasing steadily.

The minister also said that by 1997-98, departmental spending subject to the program review will decline by 19 per cent relative to 1994-95. What the government did not say is that most of the money saved will be used to finance the cost of servicing the debt, as I said earlier.

The government keeps telling us it is reducing overlap between federal and provincial levels. In fact, the government is transferring the debt and the bills without transferring the corresponding authorities and tax points.

For instance, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will divest itself of its inland waters programs. In fact, this has been going on for some time in Eastern Canada. Why not transfer authority over the fisheries outright, as requested by the provinces concerned?

The government has not withdrawn from areas under provincial jurisdiction or transferred the corresponding tax room to the provinces. There are still two departments of Health and two departments of Human Resources Development responsible for social programs in each province.

If the government had withdrawn from areas under provincial jurisdiction, it could have saved billions of dollars more on its operating expenditures, while at the same time eliminating costly overlap on the federal side.

The government wants to promote autonomy by eliminating direct subsidies to business. These subsidies, which total $3.8 billion today, will still add up to $1.5 billion in three years' time. Why not get rid of them now, since the business community and business groups, including the Conseil du Patronat du Québec, have been asking the government to abolish them outright?

The government also intends to charge fees for a number of government services. On paper this sounds great, but will charging every adult who applies for immigration to Canada a fee of $975 really reduce the deficit? Charging people this amount when they come here seeking a better life strikes us as mercenary, to say the least.

The budget proposes a 30 per cent reduction in dairy subsidies over the next two years. Quebec, which receives 50 per cent of these direct subsidies, will bear the brunt of this measure. Farmers in Western Canada whose subsidies are cut will receive compensation but not in Quebec.

We are also told that 45,000 positions in the public service will be cut in the next three years and yet this is barely enough to slow down the debt rate. The government says it is determined to be fiscally responsible, but the debt keeps growing as it did under Wilson and Mazankowski.

Why were positions not targeted for cuts in departments and organizations where there is an overlap with the provinces? A significant proportion of staff cuts will, in fact, be made in departments like National Defence and Transport, where there is no overlap with the provinces.

If the government was really serious about flexible federalism, it should have demonstrated its intention, when tabling the budget, to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction. By remaining in these areas, it retains the right to impose its standards and its regulations.

Much greater cuts should have been made now, but more judiciously, so that less would have to be cut in the future and the deficit could be eliminated completely by 1997-98. This way, the cost of the public debt would not represent nearly 50 per cent of program expenditures as it will in 1996-97. The cuts planned for next year in transfers to the provinces and the cuts that will have to be made to programs in two years' time will hurt, but, unfortunately, they will serve only to maintain the cost of the public debt below $50 or $55 billion dollars at that time. Difficult decisions are always put off until later.

The main estimates for the Office of the Auditor General are down by 5.2 million dollars, a little over 10 per cent. The bulk of

this reduction, $4.4 million, results from the review of government programs, whereas program review is one of the cornerstones of government operations. Is this not somewhat paradoxical?

The budget of the Auditor General is cut when the role of this department is expanding, and the government is telling us that the Auditor General will publish as many as five reports a year. The existing legislation will have to be amended, in any case. It provides that the Auditor General may publish one annual report and three supplementary reports. Let us give the Auditor General the funds he needs to do his job, instead of cutting his budget as his role expands.

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-263 is to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.

As you know, these five crown corporations are now exempted from this act. The Financial Administration Act is a very broad law which deals among other things with the running of Treasury Board, public funds, public spending and the public debt.

This act was amended 58 times between 1985 and 1994, an average of once every two months. I will not go as far as saying that there has been a lack of consistency in the Financial Administration Act in the last decade, but the least that can be said is that a flood of legislative amendments were adopted to adjust to a so-called changing environment.

There are currently almost 50 crown corporations in Canada. The overall budget of these corporations is close to $5 billion and together they employ 115,000 people. Their economic impact is therefore considerable.

Although relatively autonomous with regard to their management, these crown corporations are ultimately accountable to Parliament through the minister responsible. These crown corporations' management framework, established in 1984, comes under Part X of the Financial Administration Act.

These crown corporations are accountable; they must submit an annual corporate plan to the minister responsible. They must also submit an operating budget approved by Treasury Board. They must prepare an annual report, that is, the required financial statements and statistical data showing to what extent their goals have been achieved.

Finally, each corporation must conduct internal audits. The corporation's auditor also carries out a special, more comprehensive audit every five years. However, seven corporations are exempted from these legal requirements.

Bill C-263 maintains the exemption granted to the Bank of Canada, which keeps its independence at the management level and may, for example, pursue its monetary policy whatever the government in power.

Bill C-263 also maintains the exemption already enjoyed by the CBC. In any case, the corporation is already subject to the accountability principle-internal and special audits, annual report and corporate plan-through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Act which reflects the provisions of Part X of the Financial Administration Act.

The ultimate purpose of Bill C-263 is to remove the exemption from accountability for the following five corporations: the International Development Research Centre, the Canadian Wheat Board and three other corporations involved in the arts: the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation and the Canadian Film Development Corporation.

If this bill were adopted by the House, all five corporations would be subject to the provisions of the act. They are exempted mainly because of the specific nature of their relationship with the government. Parliament has, until now, preferred to maintain the arm's length relationship of these corporations.

In 1991, the auditor general commented that many exempt corporations had voluntarily conformed with the provisions of the act. Half of the exempt corporations had asked for a value for money audit. Many exempt corporations had also established internal audit functions and audit committees within their organizations.

These corporations can be allowed greater flexibility in terms of management control. Extending certain provisions of Part X of the Financial Administration Act to the five corporations mentioned in the bill would not necessarily mean eliminating arm's length position in terms of administrative control.

According to the auditor general, there are a number of ways in which the rules can be standardized to make exempt corporations more accountable. One way would be to incorporate the provisions of Part X of the act in the enabling legislation for each exempted corporation, as in the case of the CBC, which remains accountable to Parliament but maintains a large measure of management autonomy, which means it is not subject to management audits by the government.

One could also add these corporations to the schedule to the Financial Administration Act while exempting them from certain provisions of the act. Many exempt corporations already conform voluntarily to many of the provisions in the act, so that any concerns that overly vigorous management audits would be detrimental to the mandate of these five corporations would seem to be exaggerated.

In any case, we will vote against Bill C-263 because it goes too far in terms of controlling the administration of these corporations. It would subject the five crown corporations identified to close supervision involving both their accountability and their control over their management.

We would prefer a more flexible approach, such as the one advocated by the auditor general, who proposes incorporating the requirements selected by the legislator in the enabling act of each of the five exempted corporations, as is already the case for the CBC, as we have mentioned.

Each corporation will have to be looked at individually, after analysis, to discover the best way to make it accountable and establish a level of control in keeping with its particular goals and mission. We will therefore vote against this bill, because it gives the same status to all government corporations, except the CBC and the Bank of Canada.

We favour ensuring accountability by making these corporations responsible for their operations rather than by controlling them, as Bill C-263 would have it. We want to increase their accountability, make them accountable to Parliament and thus permit a better assessment of their performance. We are opposed to unbounded control over the management of these corporations. Three of them contribute to the development of the arts, the fourth, as we said earlier, contributes to agricultural development, and the fifth contributes to international development.

We can provide a proper framework for their operations and, at the same time, show some flexibility in monitoring their management practices; this can also enhance the performance of these corporations and their efficiency.

We are also opposed to the bill as presented because it gives the minister responsible the right to interfere in the mandate of cultural agencies. Such agencies must be accorded greater flexibility in their activities.

Bill C-263 does not resolve the issue of the accountability of crown corporations since, as the auditor general himself has said, several non-exempt corporations do not comply with this principle of accountability, even if they are subject to it. They do not respect all of the accountability requirements prescribed by law.

This bill increases only slightly the accountability required of crown corporations. It seems to us that other means could be used to hold these crown corporations accountable for their results to a greater extent. This does not mean passing legislation. The auditor general's input can be extremely helpful in evaluating their results. Likewise, the fact senior executives of such corporations must appear before standing House committees, such as the public accounts committee, to account for their management, serves as a powerful incentive to produce the required reports and present documents of higher quality.

We favour this type of approach since it seems more effective to us than new legislation.

[Management Of Government Spending, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must tell the President of the Treasury Board that I will carefully read the document he has just tabled on the expenditure management system of the Government of Canada.

Like all Quebecois and Canadian taxpayers, I am concerned about the current management of federal public expenditures. In view of the information supplied to us every year by the Auditor General, it is high time for the federal government to make an in-depth review of its expenditures and, above all, of its management practices.

I hope the document tabled today will address the concerns voiced by parliamentarians and that the proposed improvements will be consistent with the auditor general's recommendations.

The criticisms expressed by the auditor general regarding program evaluation, for instance, should be taken into account. Given the abysmal performance of the Canadian government in the area of program evaluation, the Bloc Quebecois hopes this new document will contain not only new tools to more adequately inform parliamentarians of public expenditures, but also real solutions to evaluate the results of such programs.

Each year, the auditor general presents us with an impressive list of waste in the use of public funds, and the government must, as a first step, clean up its expenditures before it can justify cutting programs.

By eliminating the central policy reserves, the government will lose its flexibility to fund new projects. Since such projects will be funded by reallocating moneys committed elsewhere, the government must clearly express its priorities for the coming years.

The Bloc Quebecois will be keeping a very close watch on the political choices to be announced in the upcoming budget. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister for expressing himself so well in French.

[Tax Loopholes, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how is it that the minister so ably imposed billion dollar cuts to the unemployment insurance system but is unable to settle tax disputes that cost hundreds of millions and benefit big business?

[Tax Loopholes, February 13th, 1995]

On the eve of the budget, Mr. Speaker, how can Canadian taxpayers trust the Minister of Finance, who is taking no concrete measures to settle this dispute and whose inaction will cost them millions of dollars?

[Tax Loopholes, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The government is on the verge of paying oil and mining companies the contested $1.2 billion they claimed through tax loopholes in a case that has dragged on for 21 years. The minister says that he does not want to upset anyone. Does he have to wait 21 years to avoid upsetting people?

In addition to this case, which the federal government says it wants to settle soon, it is on the verge of paying out millions of dollars, because the income tax payable by these companies is still in dispute.