Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in today's debate on Bill C-71, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
First, I must say that this is the first time I have spoken to the 1999 budget brought down by the federal government. I am pleased to speak today because, through its budget, this government has implemented measures that have inevitably had a major impact on Quebecers.
I say this based on what we see in our ridings when we visit our constituents during recesses, when we go door to door, when we meet with local citizens and organizations.
Last week, I met with representatives of the Comité logement de Rosemont, an organization that has for many years called on the federal government to invest in housing. In ridings such as mine, the list of applicants for social housing grows daily.
For years now, these groups have been fighting to increase the availability of social housing for the neediest members of society, and have called on the federal government to back large housing projects and invest in housing. If poverty is to be eliminated, people must be able to do three things: put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head.
Since 1994, this government has frozen all spending on housing. Quebec is not receiving its 25% share under existing programs and projects. Local organizations have told me that the federal government must include new funding in the 1999 budget. Unfortunately, this budget contains nothing for the poorest inhabitants of my neighbourhood. It contains nothing for Quebec's neediest.
There are nine different parts to Bill C-71 to implement the budget. First, there are the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. The second part concerns the pension plans of the Canadian armed forces and of the RCMP. The third measure is the suspension of arbitration. The fourth concerns the management of public funds. The fifth involves the Sliammon first nation. The sixth part concerns the child tax benefit.
Finally, the ninth part concerns farm product marketing programs.
Today, I would, primarily, like to draw the attention of the House to the changes in the formula for calculating the transfers the federal government established in the latest budget. The transfer calculation formula in the 1996 budget provided for a demographic weighting of 10% for 1998-99.
This figure increased to 50% for 2002-03. What we have to understand today is that the 1999 budget will have the effect of increasing the demographic weight criterion in the calculation of the transfer to 100%.
The members of this House from Ontario, those on the government side, among others, are perhaps unaware of the effect these changes in calculation may have on Quebec, but the changes are significant and unacceptable. They are unacceptable not only for the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec, but for the people of Quebec, in health care, education and social assistance services they will receive in the coming years.
It must be pointed out that these changes in calculation will penalize Quebec considerably, by reducing its share of the $350 million yearly. Inevitably, other richer provinces will profit from this penalization. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia will get a larger share.
In the forecast increase in the 1999 budget, transfer payments are raised by $11.5 billion. Only 8.3% of that will go to Quebec. Let us look at what will go to the other provinces. Take a neighbouring province, Ontario, as an example. Quebec will receive 8.3% of the $11.5 billion. But what will Ontario receive? It will receive 47.2% of the $11.5 billion. This does not make sense. The only consequence of changing the calculation is that the richer provinces will benefit.
Earlier, while in my office, I heard the parliamentary secretary comment “What do these Quebecers have to complain about? The decrease in transfer payments will be made up with an increase in equalization”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance needs a reminder of what equalization payments are for. They are there to help the poorest provinces. Does this mean Quebec is a poor province?
If this government really wants to help the people of Quebec with health, education and social assistance, it will not only have to increase equalization payments, it will also have to increase what I might call productive spending.
We know what productive spending means in Montreal area ridings: they are what goes to purchase goods and services. They are what gets the economy going and encourages economic growth. They are what makes cities like Montreal able to compete with other major world cities.
The only consequence this budget will have for Montreal is to place it in a non-competitive position. There must be major changes in this method of calculation, which has never worked in Quebec's favour.
Not only is the formula unacceptable, so are all the measures in this budget.
The people hurt most by this budget are the unemployed. The Liberals opposite had promised help for the unemployed. I remember hundreds and thousands of Quebecers rallying on Parliament hill five years ago to tell the government that the reform by the then Minister of Human Resources Development would have a major impact on women, youth and the middle class. These Quebecers were looking for a sign of hope, some breathing room, in this budget. They found nothing.
I will be told that, five years ago, these people had no cause. But that was not the case. The statistics speak for themselves. In the case of youth alone, 75% qualified for EI in 1990, as opposed to 25% today.
In conclusion, there is nothing in this budget to improve the situation of Quebecers. The formula offers nothing for Quebec.
