Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I was deeply shocked by the remarks of the Minister of Finance.
There may be words which are not parliamentary, but there are also ideas which can be best expressed by saying that the Minister has considerably distanced himself from the truth.
This budget, like the measures taken by this government, has a centralizing effect. Even though the Minister, before trying to discredit us, has made the effort to propose, in a way which is absolutely not parliamentary, amendments to a bill which he has tabled himself and which was interpreted by the reporters and by everybody who has analyzed it exactly as it was by us, he is not fooling anybody. Because we can say that the cuts to UI proposed last year by this government, by this Minister of Finance, have begun to hit people hard, particularly the young people who are not entitled any more to UI benefits because they have not worked for a sufficient length of time and the women who go back to work and who are not entitled to UI benefits either. All these workers who suddenly see their benefit period shortened and the amount of these benefits reduced have been hit hard.
People who sometimes watch these debates have experienced and continue to experience daily the effect of these cuts and they know it. But what they still do not know is that these cuts were used this year to accumulate surpluses of more than 3 billion dollars for next year and of 5 billion dollars for the following years. These surpluses will shelter the federal government from the next recession, whereas the provinces where transfers were cut dramatically will see their number of people on welfare rise.
Imagine, during this so-called period of prosperity, 5,000 more people each month go on welfare in Quebec. But there is more. Not only will the federal government be sheltered, but it has also announced a new reform of UI which will impose new cuts of $700 million next year, and of $1.5 billion the year after, on top of all the other ones my colleagues spoke of.
These amounts will be put into a new fund which is not mentioned in the act implementing the Budget, a fund which will be used at the sole discretion of the Minister of Human Resources Development. This fund is called the Human Resources Investment Fund and can come directly into play in provincial jurisdictions. It can focus more on employment development services, such as needs assessment, counselling services, literacy and basic skills training, training and experience in the workplace, child care support, and income supplements for people on welfare.
The truth is that this government proposes, with this discretionary fund, after having starved the provinces, to force them to take the heat because of the cuts they will have to make. It is Quebec's ministers who are being blamed for cuts which were decided by the federal government.
After that, the central government will have a fund and say: "So, you are having problems? We will-" As if the money did not come out of the same pocket. The central government will say that it has come up with a certain amount from UI premiums and employers premiums, from amounts which will have been cut elsewhere. And then, the government will be able to show itself in the best light. Not only that, it will be able to ignore the provinces' conditions.
For the other provinces of Canada, maybe this is not a problem, but Quebec is a distinct people and nation. In 1965-66, when René Lévesque was the minister responsible for family and welfare, he said that we should regain control over the family allowances program in order to transform it into a system adapted to our society and to our particular needs.
Thirty years later, far from having been able to build a system adapted to our own needs, to the particular needs of Quebecers, we see ourselves increasingly choked in the jurisdictions where the federal government forced us to retreat. Furthermore, the federal government keeps funds that are not available to pay for services that would conform to its own standards but would nonetheless be designed by Quebec so it can use it to intensify its direct action by handing out yellow cheques bearing a maple leaf.
Not only is that a move toward increased centralization, but it is a radical reform of the regime where Quebec thought that it had a state in which, moreover, it felt it was destinated to realize its potential. But the more things evolve, the more that state, which seemed to be a given, is stripped of the very means that were supposed to serve to protect the interests and the civic life of its citizens. From now on, the federal government, which has shown itself unable to manage its own affairs, wants to dispense all the services directly.
On the one hand, it wants the provinces, Quebec, to make the cuts and the painful choices that will make them look insensitive while, on the other hand, it will keep its spending power, its power to add to the debt. By using the unemployment insurance premiums paid by workers and businesses, it will be able to
impose not only its standards, but also its own programs, its own ways to deal with the needs.
It goes further than ever. It interferes directly, no longer through standards, no longer by requiring-as we have seen in the 40s-constitutional reforms because the only constitutional reforms this country has ever seen are those which provided for the transfer of provincial powers to Ottawa, never the other way around. Not content with having done that, not content with having starved provinces which had put in place programs according to their own requirements, the federal government is now preparing to provide these services, in total contravention of what seemed to be the beginning of a contractual relationship.
The people of Quebec, the nation of Quebec has specific and distinct needs. It is a people, a nation according to all national standards. It is a people, a nation wishing to control its own destiny because, it is unthinkable that under the present circumstances-with 808,000 persons on welfare, more than 400 000 unemployed, young people who have no longer any hope-the current situation can continue, and to be told that instead of discussing these issues, we should accept the federal government's invitation that the finance minister presumably sent us, is simply outrageous!
It is outrageous! Words fail me; it is senseless! From the very beginning the people of Quebec have always wished to obtain minimum recognition. Their efforts were always answered with a blatant and insulting no. Now, in view of the economic and social mess this country is in, a situation we are trying to get out of by any means possible, they tell us to co-operate, to collaborate. It is an insult, not for us, not for the members of the Bloc Quebecois who were sent here to defend the interests of Quebec, to protect the future of Quebec, but it is an insult for all Quebecers, for all those who are suffering from these policies, for all those who can no longer tolerate that Quebec is unable to go about it alone.
Sure, there is a debt, sure there will still be a debt afterwards, but at least we will be able to set our own priorities and to use our resources for the development of Quebec and for creating hope. Far from being useless, this debate will have given us another opportunity to reveal the true face of this government, whose only goal is to subjugate the people of Quebec once and for all.
