Francine Lalonde

[Manpower Training, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I detect in the Prime Minister's answer that he is interested in foiling the separatists, to the detriment of the unemployed, who are in need of job training.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that his government never planned to transfer responsibility for job training to Quebec, but on the contrary, that he intends to increase intervention in this area through his social program reforms, financing that intervention even more, perhaps even with surpluses from the unemployment insurance fund?

[Manpower Training, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The tenors of the federal government keep on repeating that we can make federalism more flexible without reforming the constitution, and that administrative agreements could suffice to settle the issue.

If the Prime Minister wants us to take him seriously, before the referendum, why has he refused to grant Quebec's requests regarding job training, and for the sake of efficiency, to finally acknowledge the consensus in Quebec?

[Social Program Reform, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at the very moment the Minister of Human Resources Development was confirming his reform would follow its course, thousands of students, workers and individuals from social groups in Quebec were vigorously demonstrating, despite the perishing cold, their opposition to his reform of social programs. With one voice, they told the minister they had had enough cuts in social programs and they would not let young people be the main victims of the battle with the federal deficit.

They denounced the minister's double talk about wanting to provide Canadians with training and education, while raising educational costs, thereby limiting access to higher education.

The students warned the federal government, finally, that, by always cutting in the same spot and by always targeting the same people, it was confirming the belief widely held among ordinary people that there is no tax equity in Canada.

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1995]

Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker. I have been on a long Canada-wide tour, as you know; some of the veneer of parliamentary procedure may have worn off. I do not think I will need to be reminded again.

The current Minister of Human Resources Development, who was opposition critic at the time, said it was a fact that the buying power of seniors had been cut substantially and retroactively. First the government had taken their income assistance away, and now it was taking their buying power away. As if this were not enough, they were struck a third blow with a $2 billion cut in provincial transfers by 1990. He added that it was clear the budget was an attack the income of seniors in many regards.

What would this same Liberal critic say, were he a critic for the opposition, not only about a so-called reform of social programs, but also about this important age tax credit? If the Liberal government wishes to maintain throughout this country, which we crossed as members of the human resources committee, the slightest faith in some fairness in the taxation system, it must move swiftly to truly examine that system, ensuring that the unemployed, the poorest and the middle class are not saddled with the burden of the deficit and the debt.

Yes there is a debt, but certain parties who remain in the background are not worried, and in fact are helping, perhaps even cheerfully, to dismantle what provided some well-being to so many such people who are slaving away, struggling, having difficulty paying their rent or affording to take a vacation. These are the people who are threatened at this time by the proposals as a whole, both for reforming social programs and those contained in this amendment. This is why we are asking the House to adopt our amendment, and thus amend the bill.

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1995]

moved

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget, the federal government decided to reduce the age credit. As we know, all taxpayers aged 65 and over can ask for a tax credit equal to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and 20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec.

This credit is non-refundable, that is, it applies to the tax payable; the excess portion is non-refundable but can be applied to the spouse.

The amendment made in the last budget is aimed at reducing this credit for seniors with a net income exceeding $25,921. This threshold will be indexed annually to the increase in the consumer price index, and this measure will be implemented gradually.

We oppose this measure because it reflects, in our opinion, a deliberate effort by the government opposite to go after the middle class, as demonstrated by the so-called social program review and by a proposal to cut UI benefits, since some recipients can earn between $25,000 and $50,000.

By targeting only those with incomes under $25,000 or $18,000-we are not against helping them, quite the opposite, as you know-by cutting off ties between those with incomes over $25,000 and those making less than $25,000, the government goes beyond simply bringing universal measures to a sudden end. It is more serious than that. Universality is not just a buzzword; it also means solidarity.

Does the government think that a senior citizen with an income of $25,000 is a rich taxpayer? Yet, it is attacking this very group, who can now enjoy themselves a little after working hard all their lives. But on $25,000 a year, you still need to manage your money carefully throughout the year if you want to enjoy yourself. It is those people who are targeted by the amendment to this tax credit.

For government that claims to be liberal to be attacking the middle class is a serious matter, because the middle class is the one largely responsible, by its work, for the financial support of government and, more importantly, the one responsible also for creating solidarity. But the middle class does not want to be the only group to pay. What is happening? Instead of reforming the tax system, as is urgently needed, the governement attacks the middle class, the unemployed and the less affluent. We were non-equivocally reminded of this fact at the rally held yesterday in Montreal by community groups and central labour bodies denouncing the fact that the proposed Axworthy reform-and it is the same thing with this change to the age tax credit-attacks the middle class, the unemployed and the less affluent instead of attending to the much-awaited review of the Canadian tax system.

Let me remind you that speaking of the budget, Lloyd Axworthy himself stated in 1985, when he was-

[Unemployment Insurance, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, young people who participate in job training programs should not be refused unemployment insurance benefits. That is the position taken in Bill C-17 and in the reform proposal; it is the position that was taken in the Liberal majority report.

Does the Minister of Finance not realize that by cutting unemployment insurance benefits he has increased the fund's surplus at the expense of young people, making them pay an exaggerated amount of the deficit? In such conditions, will the minister commit to sparing young people, at least in the upcoming budget?

[Unemployment Insurance, February 10th, 1995]

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

According to the report on income security in Quebec, the number of households that had to apply for social assistance for the first time increased by three per cent last October, among which a surprising number of young people under 25 years of age.

In all regions, workers who had not yet heard about the unemployment insurance cuts are learning about them the hard way. All the while, surpluses, which will be used to reduce the national debt, are continuing to accumulate in the unemployment insurance fund.

Does the Minister of Finance not realize that his last series of budget cuts have had very dire consequences for the young people who now have to rely on social assistance?

[Social Program Reform, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the government intends to present the provinces with a fait accompli by failing to call a federal-provincial conference on the proposed reform prior to the budget? Is it the government's intention, despite the discussions that have taken place and despite the additional cuts planned in the budget, which the number of rumours about would appear to confirm, to simply announce to the provinces, without prior consultation, what the cuts will mean for them?

[Social Program Reform, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

At the start of the week, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated that the government would proceed with its reform of social programs and that it would be consulting the

provinces. The last federal-provincial ministers conference on income security was cancelled on April 18 due to the strong opposition of a number of provinces to its reform.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development plan to call a federal-provincial conference on social program reform before the upcoming federal budget?

[Social Program Reform, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the social program reform gives the federal government an opportunity to treat young people like second class citizens.

At a time when young people must build a future in extremely difficult conditions, given the problems of unemployment and government debt, the Minister of Human Resources Development, with the support of the Liberal majority within the committee, jeopardizes their ability to get university and post-secondary education by triggering a significant rise in tuition fees. Moreover, the minister and the Liberal majority want to make it more difficult for young people to get UI benefits.

Because of such measures, which show contempt and a lack of understanding, the federal government fully justifies the dissatisfaction and resentment young Quebecers and Canadians feel toward leaders who do not care at all about their future.