René Laurin

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have time to say everything I wanted before and this gives me the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague opposite who praised the measures proposed by the government.

He did not say much about the measures proposed by the government in its budget with regard to corporate taxation. For months and years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to act to ensure that all profitable businesses pay at least a minimum tax. We are not talking about start-up businesses which are struggling and losing money, but there are thousands of businesses in Canada, some say between 60,000 and 70,000, which have been profitable for years and which are still not paying a cent in taxes because of the existing Canadian legislation.

We learn in the budget that the government is creating a technical committee to review business taxation. It will carry out studies to determine the appropriate level of taxation. Should corporations be paying more taxes or less? Should tax shelters be revisited? Should they be eliminated or should new ones be created? What should become of tax havens, for example?

The government announced the creation of that committee in its budget and said that seven or eight experts would be members of that technical committee. There will be university professors, chartered accountants, scientists and some experts who already manage funds in tax shelters because they have offices in tax havens. These people will be members of the committee and will advise the government on the approach it should use.

The finance minister said, at lunch time today, that it is normal to consult people who know about tax shelters if you want to get some adequate recommendations. If we were to push the comparison a bit, we could say that it is like creating a Hell's Angels committee to help the government change the legislation on organised crime. We have almost gone that far.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on these measures his government wants to implement.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week's budget is nothing new. There is hardly anything to talk about, since this budget contains no measures that are really new. We realized that, for the next few years, the government has decided to ride the wave that brought it to power in 1993 and to stick with the measures that had been decided at that time-some of which, it must be said, were unpopular. The government has decided that, since these measures were announced two years ago, they did not have to be modified or supplemented by other measures.

In other words, the government is thinking that the blows it dealt to Canadians-some of whom it even clobbered-have caused enough pain, since some of the measures will come into effect this year. Some of the decisions made in the 1994 and 1995 budgets will take effect this year and others next year.

So, of course, the government is looking good, saying: "We will not impose any drastic, unpopular measures this year". No wonder, since those measures have already been announced in previous budgets.

At the same time, the government has decided that, by adopting this new budget, it will still impose measures, although these will not take effect right away.

These measures will be implemented in five years, so that taxpayers will not panic but think: "This may be bad news, but at least we have five years to prepare for it". We have five years to brace ourselves. It is as though people were saying: "Who knows? Many things can happen in five years, so perhaps there will be a miracle and today's bad news will not materialize in five years". This was the government's strategy in tabling this budget, which in fact is designed not to frighten anyone but which does not help improve the situation in any way.

Let us examine some of the measures one by one and see what great plans the government has. Let us start with the national debt.

When the government was first elected, in October 1993, Canada's national debt stood at $508 billion. Today, in the 1996-97 estimates, the federal debt is forecast to reach $602 billion. Next year, last year of this government's rule, the debt will have risen to $619 billion.

For most people, it is difficult to imagine an amount of that magnitude. What does $619 billion represent? When you win $1 million at the lottery for example, you know that $1,000,000 is this figure with six zeros. When you deal with billions, one billion equals one million millions. The government debt is 609 times one billion. Just in the past few years of Liberal government, since 1993, this debt has grown by $110 billion or $112 billion. That is a lot of money.

If the government managed to save, say, $5 billion-or five million times $1 million-every year by making sure that its income was $5 billion higher than its expenditures in its budget, at that rate, by putting $5 billion per year toward repaying the amount by which the debt has increased so far during the Liberal government's mandate, it would take 21 years to repay. This means that, in four short years, the Liberal government has moved us back 21 years. And that is just for the debt incurred over the past four years.

Now, if we were to apply this to the total debt, which is $620 billion, or $619.7 to be more precise, and decided tomorrow morning to repay this debt, by managing wisely, at the rate of $5 billion per year-That is a lot of money, you know. In the past 25 years or more, we have never managed to save that much in just one year in Canada. Every year, for 20 or 25 years, we have accumulated budget deficits. Instead of accumulating surpluses, we accumulated deficits. This means that we spend more than we save.

Let us assume for a moment that the reverse is true and that, tomorrow morning, through sound management, we were able to save $5 billion and use that money to repay the accumulated debt of $620 billion. It would take, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, 120 years to pay off Canada's current debt. So, 120 years to repay the debt. Needless to say that none of us will be around to see that. I do not even want to think about it, because it would be so appalling. It just does not make any sense.

Imagine how much hope and determination one needs to say that this country needs, for the next 120 years, budgets that will allow it to save $5 billion. Right now, we are not able to lower the debt. We barely manage to marginally lower the deficit. And we do so through artificial means. The government says: "The deficit went down from $42 billion in 1993-94 to $24 billion in 1996-97, an $18 billion reduction". However, there is still an extra $24 billion added on to the debt. Next year, we will look at 1997-98. It is anticipated the deficit will then be around $17 billion.

How did the government manage to achieve these deficit reductions? It did not do so by spending less but, rather, by using two main strategies. First, it gives the provinces less money than it used to for social programs and services, health and education being the main ones. This year, in comparison to previous years, the provinces will suffer a $2.5 billion shortfall. Next year, it will be $4.5 billion, for a total of $7 billion.

For Quebec, this means a shortfall of about 25 per cent. In other words, this year our province will receive about $650 million less in transfer payments. Next year, the shortfall will be about double that amount, that is $1.2 or $1.3 billion.

At this rate, I am not sure that many people would still say that Canada is the best country in the world, as is so often claimed by the Prime Minister. At the rate of $5 billion per year, it would take 120 years to pay off our country's debt of $620 billion. If this is the best country in the world, I do not want to hear about the others. It must simply be terrible. Imagine, if that is what the finest and the best looks like.

Clearly, the situation cannot continue as it is, and clearly the government's presentation of the budget in this form is what the leader of the opposition has most aptly called a cosmetic operation. It is an operation which seeks to disguise, to cover up, the magnitude of our economic ills. It is an operation aimed at making people forget that decisions were made two years ago from which there can be no going back. It is also an attempt to make people forget that decisions made to-day will kick in in five years time, whether we like it or not. Which ones are they?

I am referring to the Canadian Social Transfer. This is $7 billion, and we know that implementation has begun. The government has not had to make any new statements; they know that there are $4,5 billion that will not go out to the provinces this year. I had started to talk about how that was financed, as the government knows very well.

I said that the government was financing this, financing the reduction of its deficit in two ways, but I gave just one.

I spoke of the Canadian Social Transfer, where it recovered $7 million, but there is another way. When the federal government decides to collect money, I do not think it can be trusted. As soon as it gets its grubby little hands on some money, you cannot be sure what it will do with that money. Think of what happened to Canadians' unemployment insurance contributions.

There was a time when the federal government participated in the unemployment insurance fund, putting money into it to help out those who were unemployed. However, in recent years, the unem-

ployment insurance fund has been fed only by employee and employer contributions. Only those who work pay in contributions, with their employers. This money is what is will be used to pay unemployment insurance to those who, unfortunately, are out of work.

Now in the past two years, the unemployment insurance situation has improved so significantly that a sort of unemployment insurance profit has been made. In other words, more money is coming in from workers and employers than is being paid out for unemployment-$5 billion last year.

In all fairness, this figure of $5 billion should go to the workers and employers from whose pockets it all came. However, as employees and employers trusted the government, they have said: "You are a trustworthy body, you will collect this money for us and will keep it in reserve, in the bank, and when you need it, you will give it to us for the unemployed".

The government, which already had this responsibility, decided to keep it, of course, because that would also allow it, until the money was needed, to make whatever use of it it felt justified.

When you put money into the hands of someone who needs it, is it not a great temptation for that person to use the money until the unemployed need it? Since the government is running a deficit, and needs money to look good, to be considered a good manager, when it sees $5 million not being used, it grabs it saying: "I will pay it back later, if the unemployment insurance fund ever runs a deficit".

In other words, when employers and employees decided to put their UI contributions into the hands of the government, without reservation, it was as if the fox had been put in charge of the henhouse.

The English have a another way of saying that. The Minister of Finance, who comes from Quebec, often uses the expression: "Do not put the rabbit in charge of the lettuce". For Quebecers who may not have understand, it means that to keep the lettuce, we should not give it to the rabbit or else, when time comes to eat the lettuce, there might be some missing.

That is roughly what happened with the unemployment insurance fund: the government acted like a fox, or like a rabbit in front of a box full of lettuce. With its growing appetite-and we know how voracious the government can get-it took a large helping. Indeed, it took $5 billion paid by workers and employers and said: "With this, I can reduce the deficit by $5 billion". Adding $5 billion to $7 billion, we get the $12 billion that are not being transferred to provinces: "Mission accomplished, we have reduced the deficit by $12 billion".

That is why, in the budget, the government did not change a thing in its approach, in the way it collects UI premiums and in the way it pays UI benefits. If the government had wanted to, it had an ideal opportunity to take advantage of the situation to create jobs. Here is $5 billion paid by workers that are not used for unemployment insurance. It could have taken this opportunity to lower UI premiums, which would have left in the economy $5 billion more that could have been used to create new jobs. The government should have jumped at this opportunity, if it had been sincere, having promised during the last election campaign to create "Jobs, jobs, jobs". It had the opportunity to create jobs, but it did nothing. It did not jump at the opportunity. Instead it jumped at the opportunity of making a good show.

Why is the government trying to improve its image these days? Why does it need so much to improve it? Government members, from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on down, surely watch television. They must watch television. They must see what is going on in the other provinces. They must see what is going on in their own province, in some cities, when the government announces measures that will affect the underprivileged.

I wonder if the government is not paving the way, just in case it might no longer be able to run the country in a few months from now. The Axworthy reform, which was withdrawn at prorogation, is a bill which the government is trying to reinstate right now. This reform is not all that popular. Thousands and thousands of citizens, people from the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, and Ontario, are complaining about this reform, calling it inhuman because it mostly picks on the less-privileged.

Could it be that the government that is about to reinstate this bill, which will surely prove to be very unpopular, is trying to rebuild its image just in case it has to call an election? It could be. The government might have to call an election because of its unpopular measures, so it might be thinking: "Maybe we should start preparing some ground work here."

It is a pity that I only have a few seconds left, Mr. Speaker, because I have so much more to say, but I will rely on my hon. colleagues to take part in this debate and decry not only the government, but also the budget, which, as I said before, does nothing to correct the disastrous debt and employment situation we have in Canada.

[Taxation, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact quite surprised that the minister will not reassure taxpayers who are very concerned about this.

Since the federal government reinvests only 4 per cent of all taxes on gasoline in the construction and maintenance of roads, will the Minister of Finance promise not to increase those taxes?

[Taxation, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

In the finance committee report on pre-budget consultations, published in January, the liberal majority recommends that the tax on gasoline be raised. For weeks now, millions of taxpayers have been writing to let us know that they are opposed to any increase in that tax.

Since 23 cents out of every dollar paid for gasoline go to the federal government, can the minister tell us if it is true he is about to pull $5.2 billion out of the pockets of road users?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one of the steps the government is taking to keep the promises the Prime Minister made at the meeting of the no side in Verdun. The promises were made in the dying moments of the referendum campaign, when, for the previous two years, the government had systematically refused to discuss any constitutional matter.

Only the phenomenal advance of the yes side forced the Prime Minister out of his constitutional lethargy and into giving Quebecers the hope of reform and satisfaction of their traditional claims.

Quebecers, however, are not fooled. Now all of the evidence points to the fact that the Prime Minister's offers were tabled in a mad panic. For example, the last minute press conference. The phoney committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had not even finished its deliberations.

The Liberal caucus had not been consulted either, and was put in the picture only after the Prime Minister's press conference. The offers presented are far from having unanimous support from the other provinces. This is a put up job, and a bad one at that, indicating that the Cabinet was beginning to panic about the challenges to the Prime Minister's ability to lead.

Many political figures on the Canadian scene, particularly in Quebec, gave an extremely chilly reception to the proposal for a regional veto, which was probably a great blow to the Liberal government. What explanation can there be for such a uproar of disapproval in response to the Prime Minister's proposals?

While the Meech Lake accord offered all provinces the right of veto over constitutional amendments, particularly those relating to federal institutions, here we have the Prime Minister reheating an old amending formula dating back to the seventies and the Victoria Charter. There is only one tiny change, the percentage of population required for the maritimes. The reactions were more or less the same in all the rest of Canada. English Canada reacted strongly to a proposal dating back to a distant time we were only too pleased to think had been forgotten forever.

First of all, the premiers of the two most populous western provinces voiced strong opposition to this offer. In British Columbia, Mr. Harcourt was not terribly enthusiastic, and a number of academics in the province even suggested the Prime Minister would cause the birth of a separatist movement in British Columbia. To show you how hard it is to grant these veto powers, the Prime Minister immediately turned around and promised British Columbia it would have a veto too. All in less than 24 hours. If you want a veto, the Prime Minister has a drawer full and will hand them out to anyone who makes a fuss and does not like his proposals.

That is not the kind of veto Quebec had in mind. The same kind of reaction came from Premier Klein of Alberta, who was not at all keen to see Ontario have a veto while three western provinces had to share. He maintained it was unfair to one of the three richest provinces in Canada and a province whose population was increasing at the fastest rate. Need I recall the position taken by the Reform Party, which is opposed to special privileges for any province and in the case of Quebec refuses to recognize anything, not even a symbolic and meaningless distinct society with no legal validity?

In Quebec, reactions were harsh as well. In one of his speeches, the Prime Minister maintained that Quebecers would recognize themselves in his proposals and that these would respond to the aspirations of Quebecers. Obviously we are not talking about the same Quebec.

His comments now and during the referendum indicate that the Prime Minister no longer knows Quebec and that the fact that he has been living in Ottawa for more than 30 years has probably cut him off altogether from what is happening in Quebec.

His proposals were intended to satisfy Quebecers, but he made the serious mistake of wanting to please everyone. By giving everyone half a loaf, he managed to please no one.

Most political parties in Quebec either reacted very negatively or were not satisfied with the proposals or dismissed them out of hand.

When there is a fire in Quebec, the other provinces panic. They show Quebec a whole arsenal of firehoses, telling us we can now feel safe and sound, protected by the other provinces and this array of firehoses. Too bad there was not enough water in the hoses to put out the fire. What we are being offered is not the real thing, but Quebec wants the real thing.

As I said to a colleague yesterday, we want to be recognized as horses, but they recognize us as little ponies. A horse is stronger than a pony. Quebec claims to be that strong and powerful; it does not want to be seen as small, weak and disadvantaged.

Mr. Dumont's Action démocratique also argues that what Quebecers want is not mere motions or bills but real constitutional reforms.

Both the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have rejected the Prime Minister's proposals. Labour indicated that it was too little, too late. As for the very federalist Liberal Party in Quebec, all it had to say was that it was a step forward, but without any great enthusiasm. At a regional council held the day before the Prime Minister came out with his proposals, the Liberal Party in Quebec went much further in its constitutional demands.

The Premier of Quebec and even Mr. Bourassa before him would never have agreed to the Prime Minister of Canada's watered down proposals. Beyond partisan politics, however, the media's reaction was the most revealing indication of how the federal government's proposals were received. The editorial writer for Le Devoir refutes the federal proposals, arguing that enshrining this veto power in an act of Parliament would not really give Quebec its veto back.

Quebec would not really get its veto back because although its veto was recognized by tradition, the Supreme Court stated that Quebec never had a legal veto. This editorial writer points out that any government could very well revoke this act. Reform would probably make it a point of honour to do so upon taking office. The most telling comments in the newspapers, however, are in La Presse , whose chief editorial writer, Alain Dubuc, who is well-known for his pro-federalist positions, wrote that Quebecers want much more than that. He added that, as long as these principles are guaranteed by legislation, all it would take for Quebec to lose its guarantees is a shift in policies or a change of government. The Prime Minister's proposals are held up to ridicule from all sides and considered as plainly unacceptable, both by English Canada and by Quebec.

To conclude, I would like to add that the main problem with this bill is its very essence; after all, it is just a bill. As long as all the provinces do not agree on its principle, it will remain just a bill.

This simple bill has the same force in law as any other bill, which means that it can be repealed by any government, as it sees fit .That is its weakness and that is what we condemn.

[Public Service, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.

The first quarterly report on job cuts in the public service indicates that so far Quebec has received more than 28 per cent of federal job cuts. This situation discriminates against Quebec, which before the cuts had only 19.3 per cent of federal public service jobs.

Considering that Quebec's under-representation within the federal public service has already caused it to lose more than 22,500 full-time jobs, what justification does the minister have for letting Quebec absorb more than 28 per cent of the cuts in the federal public service?

[Bronfman Foundation, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The recently published public accounts reveal that the Minister of Canadian Heritage awarded a grant of $5 million to the Bronfman Foundation to fund historical vignettes on Canada's heritage for television broadcast. His own officials recommended a grant of only $1 million.

How does the minister explain his decision to give the Bronfman Foundation five times the amount his officials recommended, when he is cutting subsidies to francophone associations outside Quebec and everywhere in the area of cultural development?

[Public Service, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to say the least that the President of the Treasury Board never mentioned anything about this to the Minister of Finance. In view of the finance minister's answer, I might add that one of these public service downsizing programs, the early retirement program, which was supposed to affect 4,000 employees and cost $300 million, attracted 1,500 more people than expected and ended up costing $800 million instead of the original $300 million, or almost three times more than expected.

How can the government explain that its early retirement program will end up costing almost three times more than expected?

[Public Service, November 23rd, 1995]

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

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that compensation packages for laid-off public servants would cost approximately $1.3 billion. But the annual financial statement tabled by the government shows a huge cost overrun, with costs up to $2.3 billion.

How can the government explain the fact that its public service downsizing programs have cost $1 billion more than anticipated?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised Quebecers that many things would change if they voted no in the October 30, 1995, referendum.

A mere three weeks after the referendum, Quebecers are already getting a taste of changes to come as the Minister of Human Resources Development presents Bill C-96 to merge four departments into a single one. But at the same time, as could be expected, he gives himself broader powers, continues to invade provincial jurisdictions and goes against the quasi unanimous consensus in Quebec on this issue.

Back in 1991, the Bourassa government was asking that Quebec be responsible for all expenditures relating to manpower development, including training. At the time, Mr. Bourbeau, the minister responsible, had written his federal counterpart a very clear letter on this subject.

Time and time again, the Quebec national assembly requested almost unanimously that Ottawa withdraw from this provincial area of jurisdiction. After this bill was introduced, several major stakeholders in Quebec made representations against the HRD minister's centralizing designs. For example, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre takes issue with the government repeatedly trying to interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

According to the SQDM, clauses 6 and 20 of Bill C-96 would empower the Minister of Human Resources Development to enter into agreements with a province, a group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate, to improve the labour market and promote equality and social security.

In so doing, the minister blatantly violates provincial jurisdiction and goes directly against Prime Minister Chrétien's promises of decentralization during the referendum campaign. These promises were short-lived. When questioned on this by the Bloc Quebecois, the minister said, with rare degree of arrogance, that the opposition had obviously not even bothered to read the bill.

Not only must this bill be read line by line, it must also be read between the lines. One must do more than read the bill, and when that happens, one realizes that it is totally different from what it appears to be, because it allows the federal government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In response to another question from the Leader of the Opposition, the minister answered that he felt that the hon. member had strayed substantially from the line of logic and reason. That attitude shows clearly that the minister does not understand the issue and that he insults every Quebec stakeholder opposed to the new bill.

Even the Conseil du patronat, and this is quite something because that staunch supporter of federalism rarely agrees with the Bloc's philosophy, is asking the minister to amend, if not withdraw, Bill C-96.

With the rapid development of new technologies and the globalization of markets, Quebec industry must quickly adapt to meet the new challenges of the world economy. Manpower training plays a vital role in ensuring that our workers are familiar with state-of-the-art technology and can meet the needs of the Quebec labour market.

Currently, there are close to 70,000 jobs which are available in Quebec but remain unfilled because adequate occupational training was not provided. The Quebec government recently introduced legislation to encourage companies to offer more in-house training.

However, a lot remains to be done and, without total control in that sector, the provincial government cannot adequately meet the expectations of the Quebec labour market. The federal and provincial governments are always competing to show workers which of the two levels of government can best meet their expectations and aspirations.

When that happens, it costs millions of dollars in unnecessary duplication. Such duplication costs several hundreds of millions in the manpower training sector, and that is a real shame. For example, in the Eastern Townships, for every dollar spent on manpower training, 42 cents go to administrative costs. Over 40 per cent, more specifically 42 per cent, of the amount which should be used for manpower development is used instead to pay for course organization, promotional efforts and course delivery. This is an incredible waste of energy and money.

Unfortunately, Quebec workers are the ones who are affected by the stubbornness of the federal government and of its Minister of Human Resources Development. Moreover, since the 1990 UI reform, the federal government has been making extensive use of the UI fund for training purposes.

In 1994-95, $531 million were spent for that purpose. The federal department now offers 27 initiatives or programs, most of which create duplication with the 22 programs offered by the SQDM and others offered by various departments.

In 1994, the federal government announced the creation of Youth Service, at a cost of $175 million. This program is entirely comparable to the Volunteer Youth Action Program which is efficiently run by the SQDM. In spite of repeated demands by the Quebec government, the federal government keeps refusing to transfer funds into the provincial program, thus wasting money because of duplication.

Another equally pathetic example is the federal program that matches another similar Quebec program called Jeunes stagiaires. The 50 Canadian sectorial skills council, set up in 1992, are another case of duplication, considering the 15 Quebec manpower sector committees which have been in place for more that five years. The federal government will spend more that $250 million to set up its own councils. Finally, because of the rigid standards for POWA, the federal government has failed to compensate many garment sector workers.

In view of the difficulties some workers were experiencing, the Quebec government, through the SQDM, had to step in to make up for the federal government's shortcomings. There again, we have duplication. What a waste of money and time. The cost of all this duplication is estimated at $250 million a year. That is poor management and poor efficiency.

In conclusion, I would say that federal intrusion in the area of human resources development since 1942 is one more example of its abuse of the spending power and of its disregard for the exclusive jurisdictions of the Quebec government. Constitutionally, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training, but, to this day, the stubbornness of the federal government still undermines the development of the Quebec economy.

Vocational training is the cornerstone of competitiveness and availability of highly skilled workers, two assets that are essential if we are to develop a high technology economy, attract many investors and produce value added goods.

This minister and his government should stop all this nonsense and give back to Quebecers all the tools they need to deal with after manpower training. Bill C-96 should therefore be withdrawn, and the Prime Minister should start to deliver on his decentralization promises in areas where a strong consensus exists in Quebec.