Madam Speaker, in the House of Commons of Canada, February 22, 1994 will remain the day of broken promises and betrayed hopes. A number of Quebecers and many Canadians believed the leader of the Liberal Party when he promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Unfortunately for them, it was only a flashing slogan, but nevertheless an election campaign slogan.
Broken promises, betrayed hopes by a party that promised to break with the Conservative policies and management, but whose budget is blatantly in line with and even reinforces the financial, fiscal, economic and social policies of the previous government.
The budget speech shows clearly that this government does not have the slightest political will to address unemployment. It does not have any employment policy except a few devices such as the infrastructure program, which will only mean about 15,000 non permanent jobs for all of Quebec for two years. Even worse, instead of addressing unemployment, this government is attacking the unemployed and the most vulnerable people in our society. Indeed, the Minister of Finance immediately announced, without any embarrassment, that he intends to cut social programs in order to collect more than $ 7.5 billion by 1996-97.
Let us look at these points one by one. On employment, not only does the government not have an employment policy, but it has seriously harmed employment.
It must be pointed out that this government, as early as January, increased unemployment insurance premium rates, thus adding a further $800 million to the tax burden of businesses and workers. The finance minister went so far as to recognize, as the Bloc Quebecois had maintained on several occasions, that this kind of payroll tax harms employment and businesses which are more labour-intensive than technology-driven.
Make no mistake about it, even though the minister recognized that such a tax was bad for employment and businesses, he has not reduced it yet. He has maintained it for the remainder of 1994. It is only next year, when it will have taken $800 million from workers and businesses, that he will bring it back to its 1993 level. He will do so, not only when it will have produced $800 million, but also after benefits owed to workers will have been reduced.
Therefore, such a measure compounds non-productive decisions which, far from helping the employment situation, make it worse. It is no wonder that the finance minister is forecasting in his budget that unemployment rates will only drop from 11.2 per cent in 1993, to 10.8 per cent in 1995. We know that Ms. Campbell paid dearly for similar comments she made early in her campaign. They are taboo during an election campaign.
Let us talk about unemployment insurance. According to the minister's projections, it is more than $5 billion he will save in that area. Let us see what he is planning and who will suffer. By increasing the minimum number of weeks a person must work to qualify for UI, especially the first time around, one will have to work 40 weeks to be entitled to 20 weeks of UI; by reducing the duration of benefits, the finance minister is pushing many people, especially in areas already economically depressed and those who are already experiencing major difficulties, on welfare. In so doing, the minister is passing the buck to the provinces, since there will be no jobs. He is making the poor poorer.
This flies in the face of the official discourse to the effect that we must bridge the ever widening gap between social classes and their income discrepancies. On the other hand, the finance minister proudly announces special measures in favour of the least fortunate members of our society. He is proud to say for instance that individuals with a weekly income of $390 who support dependants would receive 60 per cent of the average business income. But these individuals are already in a position such that they will not be receiving more than $234 a week in benefits. He stated that the benefit rate would increase to 60 per cent, but see under what conditions. This is important. It has not been emphasized yet.
Let us not forget that, in Quebec and probably other provinces as well, social assistance services have reported cases of single mothers who have suffered humiliation as their private lives were brought under scrutiny because they did not qualify for
this or that benefit because they had dependant children. So, when the minister introduces this notion of dependant children to justify bringing the UI benefit rate down from 57 to 55 per cent for all recipients, a rate which is getting close to the US rate by the way, when the minister uses that excuse to say: "How generous. We do have the well-being of the less fortunate at heart", he is actually taking us back to the dark old days when women had to prove they were worthy in their private lives of being recognized as independent, single mothers who needed adequate support.
That is why I want to denounce as a fraud a budget speech which is supposed to be liberal and progressive, but is in fact bringing us back to the days before the 1970s reform. This measure will open the door to all sorts of inquiries, nit-picking, whistle-blowing and create a system within a system, again, to save about $10 a week.
Chances are that this measure will not cost much, considering how long it takes for a decision to be made and for the first UI cheque to be issued. It is not true that we are creating this wonderful world. On the other hand, we are setting ourselves a dangerous course with this widespread consultation on social programs. The government is leaning toward the concept of family income, a concept which, in so far as social assistance is concerned, plunged us into a kind of inquisition situation which I denounced earlier.
The axe will also fall on seasonal workers, on those who have trouble finding steady work either because they are young, lack basic experience or work in areas where despite their qualifications, they cannot find work. These are the people who benefit from the 10/42 or 10/39 system.
Instead of attacking the regions' structural problems, the government is shifting the burden of responsibility onto individuals and restricting their access to unemployment insurance and to the benefits to which they are entitled. What is the Minister of Finance doing to resolve the problems of those who are in need? Nothing. He has failed to propose any solutions. Worse still, he has scrapped several tax incentives and regional subsidies, leaving people in the regions without any hope at all.
The extent of the cuts to unemployment insurance and the introduction of the concept of family income prove to anyone who may have doubted it that with its attempt at the so-called modernization and restructuring of social security programs, the government is merely turning the clock back to the 1970s. At the same time, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development are resurrecting the old ghosts of the 1970s. They are proposing to take a trip down memory lane and to reinstate the outdated, archaic concept of basing benefit levels on family status.
The government is announcing a reduction of more than $5.5 billion in the unemployment insurance budget over the next two years. And that is not all. That is only one aspect of the upcoming social program reform.
We cannot help but be concerned about another aspect, namely social assistance reform, and the more than likely decision on the part of the government not to renew the Canada Assistance Plan. It is indeed cause for concern because it is specific. As for total savings, the Minister of Finance says that the reform will have to result in savings of more than $7.5 billion by the end of 1996-1997. That is his objective and the consultation currently being planned may in fact never take place.
Three clear, inescapable conclusions can be drawn from the budget figures. First, the only major cuts announced in this budget-and I am not saying that the cuts to the military are not major, but when compared to cuts to social spending, they are minor-for the next two years affect social programs, more specifically, the unemployed and those who are often the most vulnerable.
Second, the Minister of Human Resources Development cannot continue making fun of Quebecers and Canadians any longer by pretending to consult them about their priorities and concerns, since his own priorities and concerns, namely moving ahead with cuts, are reflected in the budget.
I urge him, Madam Speaker, to immediately table his reform project and to get rid of these experts at $500 a day plus expenses.
Third, if the finance minister is able to assess so accurately the effects of reform, it must be because his government's project has been ready for a long time since it is that of the Conservatives.
We can understand by looking around us and guessing the rest why, early in the election campaign, Ms. Campbell shied away from the possible consequences of reform. She was not as cynical as this government, elected to create jobs, which is sticking to its predecessor's policy of cutbacks.
It must be said that, in their time, the Conservatives followed the Liberals' policy. They implemented all major recommendations of the Macdonald Commission created by former Prime Minister Trudeau, except for one, income security reform. That is where we are now. We are looking at the Macdonald Commission's plan, with variations we may admire, of course, but most of that plan is there, with details we can guess at.
Declarations by the minister followed on the heels of declarations by the deputy ministers. We must not forget that the deputy ministers who briefed the minister are the same ones who
briefed the former government, who briefed Mr. Benoît Bouchard before the OECD conference held on the 8th and 9th of December in Paris, where Mr. Bouchard gave a speech that the Minister of Human Resources Development could not disown, that could even be his.
Does this mean that there is no other way to play politics than the way of Liberals and Conservatives? For the Liberals, the answer is no. Until Canadian federal parties escape from the clutches of the big corporations that finance them and whose interests prevail government after government, Canadians will have a choice between six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Why did the finance minister refuse to go after the real sources of revenue and to ensure that large corporations pay taxes by blocking the royal road to tax shelters. Fortunately, and I was happy to see that our finance critic came to the same conclusion, Quebecers exercised that prerogative thanks to the late René Lévesque. No one is saying that governments are not in a difficult situation, but nothing less than equity between individual and corporate citizens is acceptable.
Without this fairness, citizens are tricked, manoeuvred and manipulated by a clique who are not affected by the many and growing insecurities of ordinary people. They do not even have an idea of what it is like to be afraid of losing a meagre unemployment insurance or welfare cheque. They do not know the humiliation and anguish caused by the raised eyebrows of all the welfare and unemployment insurance officials in the land. They could not live for a single day on what a woman has to raise two children on for a whole month. And now this woman will have to prove that she really is the head of the family and that her personal income is such that she is entitled for a few weeks to 60 per cent of not much, scarcely more than the minimum wage. The minister tells us about the responsible management of social programs.
It is both scandalous and revealing that the Minister of Finance forgot to attack costly duplication, a big source of potential savings, in his speech. It shows that this government lacks the will to deal with this important issue, especially with the Government of Quebec. It also shows this government's desire to centralize and its eagerness to meddle in fields of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something, and I thought about it twice. I had heard that the Minister of Human Resources Development was a progressive man whom I could help, in the strange way that the Official Opposition usually does. Now I know that is not at all the case; despite his generous words, he agreed to make the only significant cuts which the Liberal government is making at the expense of the most vulnerable people and their children. The Minister of Finance told us today, "We are advancing social security reform by taking specific measures affecting unemployment insurance and federal transfers to the provinces for social security".
We say to the Minister of Finance that he has not advanced social security reform. He has shamefully attacked the most disadvantaged. He has refused to attack the main cause of all these problems, employment. He has also refused to attack seriously the most important sources of potential savings: family trusts, defence and duplication. Because we in the Bloc reject this vision, which is the same as the one previous governments had, we want the people of Quebec to have a real plan for the future, which can only come about if Quebec goes it alone as a sovereign state, even though that will not be easy.
