Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the budget presented on February 22, I think it is appropriate to remind everybody that a budget is an instrument that a government uses to pursue its objectives. To recall the objectives that the Liberal Party had set for itself, I should point out what the leader and his candidates said during the campaign.
What did they say? They said that it was necessary to give hope back to Canadians, to get people back to work and to bring the deficit back to 3 per cent of the GDP. They said that they would protect the universality of our social programs and our health care system against the severe cutbacks announced by the Tories and requested by the Reform Party. They said that it was necessary to invest $20 billion in the infrastructure.
Let us pursue our search for coherence. Immediately after the election, the Prime minister announced the cancellation of the helicopter contract, thus causing the loss of hundreds of high technology jobs in Quebec without compensation, in spite of the traditional inequity of the National Defence spendings in Quebec: $538 per capita in Nova Scotia, compared to $62 in Quebec.
Another way to judge the objectives of the government is to refer to the throne speech. Allow me to underline the lack of a real will to deal with real problems.
Apart from the infrastructure program, which was slashed from $20 billion before the election campaign to a mere $6 billion, no concrete measure was taken to revive the labour market on a durable basis. On the contrary, the government announces the loss of 40,000 jobs due to the unemployment insurance premium increase in 1994.
There is no will to reduce operating expenditures. There is no will to reform the Canadian tax system. Just like the former government, the new government announces that it will undertake in the next few years a reform of our social security system.
After such a weak throne speech, how could we expect a budget different from the one that was presented in the House on February 22? Could we hope for a miracle? Let us recall the discussion we had in the House in the weeks preceding the budget speech.
Every time the official opposition asked the government questions on important matters such the national debt, the deficit, the tax system, the preservation of our social safety net, family trusts, job creation, the fate of young Canadians, we were told to wait for the budget, that it would give all the answers. It was to be the cure-all, the nirvana of the finance minister. What a sham. What a cruel parody.
Last week, on February 28, I experienced a truly democratic exercise with my constituents whom I had invited to come and share their concerns with me.
Among the forty or so persons present, there was a large consensus on family trusts and tax loopholes, shelters and havens. These constituents are shocked by the government's inaction and the absence of adequate measures in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.
These voters do not understand why, after having fought against the Valcourt plan, the Liberal Party would come down so ferociously on UI benefits. According to three economists of the Université du Québec at Montreal, who certainly have more credibility than the Minister of Finance, the unemployed alone will contribute 60 per cent of the savings the federal government says it will make in its financial commitments.
People in my riding compare the way those less fortunate people are being treated with the extravagant expenditures of our embassies. They think of the generals and ambassadors who are still driven around in limousines and the army, where there are more officers than soldiers, more generals than tanks.
People I have met in my riding do not understand why the Minister of Finance is reducing tax exemptions for seniors while refusing to review the entire tax system. They do not admit that the federal government, which has often said it was responsible for defending minorities in this country, would close down the only French-language military college in America in spite of
the advice given by all stakeholders, including those of the Department of National Defence. With this decision, the government is showing its real personality.
Now let us talk about assistance to developing countries. Given the present economic context and our financial state, it is fitting to analyze the budget and administrative decisions taken by the government regarding aid to developing countries.
Such an analysis is made all the more difficult as the government announced, a while ago, that it was going to review Canada's foreign policy as a whole. It is rather awkward to study the budget, public expenses and development assistance in relation to these new objectives, since they have not yet been set.
Another problem comes from the fact that CIDA only tabled its 1991-1992 annual report in January 1994. It has not yet been critically analyzed by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
In this respect, we have every right to question the criteria used by the government to cut its development assistance budget.
The Bloc Quebecois expected to see in this budget a substantial increase of non-governmental organization funding, even if it meant a reduction of bilateral assistance programs, often criticized by people in the field.
We believe that the NGOs' share should be much greater than it is now, since they work directly with the poorest people of the world, with one of the highest success rate in the area, and the lowest administration costs. Only 10 per cent of Canadian assistance to developing countries goes to NGOs.
It is too little and the Minister of Foreign Affairs agrees with you since he said in the House on February 9 that the government would do everything in its power to not only maintain but increase this percentage.
The minister did not keep his promise. Neither will the Minister of Finance be able to keep his promise to allocate to development assistance 0.7 per cent of GDP, an internationally recognized standard, given the measures announced in this budget. How can he increase this ratio, which now amounts to 0.4 per cent of GDP, with a 2 per cent reduction in international assistance funding and resources frozen at this level for the following year?
Can the government reveal its magic trick, unless its solution lies in reducing Canada's GDP in the next few years?
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government should look beyond the economic reasons to cut development assistance and reconsider the cuts made in recent years. Our position is based on several reasons.
The first reason has to do with Canada's international prestige and reputation with respect to its development assistance efforts. This is an essential element of the whole thrust of Canadian foreign policy. Cuts in development assistance funding will surely have a very negative impact on Canada's international image, as well as a potential ripple effect on other countries.
Another aspect, the most important in our opinion, that the government should have considered is the humanitarian dimension of international assistance.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the measures announced by the government in its budget regarding international assistance are not very consistent. We are now waiting for the review of our foreign policy, which hopefully will not be as disappointing as this budget.
We particularly hope that the new direction of Canada's international assistance policy will not be affected by the negative aspects of this budget, and that the federal government will set objectives which will take into account the needs of the poorest countries as well as the expectations of Canadian organizations and individuals involved in international co-operation.
