André Bachand

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR coalition members are pleased to support this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

You can double your caucus as long as we triple ours.

Anyway, over $25 billion have been slashed from transfers to the provinces—and I say “over” $25 billion because there was no indexing at the time and needs have grown—and it has led to a crisis. Money is not everything. Of course, it is easier to make decisions when you have money. As I said before, after making these cuts, the government decided to ruthlessly slash into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

To whom will the people complain? When I was city councillor, I used to say “It is the city councillors who have the backside closest to the taxpayers' boot”. In second place are the MLAs, and farthest from the taxpayers are MPs. So, when the federal government makes cuts to a provincial area of jurisdiction, who do the people turn to to complain? The provinces.

Announcements are made in economic statements and in budgets which the government only bothers to introduce every two years these days. New measures are not necessary, proper financing for current measures is. The Liberals claim that everything is hunky-dory. It is not true. They also argue “There is no fiscal imbalance, no decision imbalance. Everything is fine. There is a lot of money in the system”. They even go as far as to say “Everything is going so well that we have asked Mr. Romanow to head up a royal commission on health care”.

They want to revamp the health care system in Canada. Very well. But what about the fiscal arrangements? Do we not get to discuss them?

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP. As I always say, New Democrats are the social conscience for parliament. We need them, not too many of them, but we do need them.

Anyway, over $25 billion—

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an economist—I do not have all the faults nor all the qualities—but essentially I know that a tax point is an agreement between levels of government. Tax points are dollars in the pockets of taxpayers. Governments agree to say that the money in the pockets of taxpayers is like a pie divided into a number of pieces, each taking its share of it.

Tax point agreements between the federal government and provinces allow levels of government to have revenues that follow the economic and, of course, demographic evolution of their area. That allows for some sovereignty, in the right sense of the word, for the various levels of government. Fiscal imbalance is essentially a fear of decisional imbalance—that is what it is—between the federal and the provinces.

When Quebec or other provinces ask for tax points, it is to secure revenues based on their own growth without any decisional imbalance from Ottawa. The poorest provinces are afraid of that. However, if the poorest provinces have additional development levers, then there will be a harmonious balance in the country.

Therefore tax points are agreements; in the end it is the flexibility that enables a government to get the money it needs and, I repeat, gives it balance and a certain sovereignty.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is saying the minister is a squirrel. I do not know whether he is a squirrel or a chipmunk with a big tail, but this is another issue.

We are asking the federal government to sit down with the provinces in order to examine the fiscal issue. Call it an imbalance, or a modernization of fiscal arrangements within a country, it does not matter, but the existence of a problem must be recognized. When, for all sorts of reasons, a central government decides to divest of an area, to divest financially, and to divest indirectly of areas which, by the letter and the spirit, come under provincial jurisdiction, there is a problem, and a serious one.

The Séguin Commission strictly underlined a reality which exists, and not only with Quebec. Indeed, as I said a moment ago, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc added “and in the other provinces”, because this is a reality. However, the problem is different. After the Séguin report came out, some provinces said: “We are now experiencing a more difficult time than other provinces; what is happening with equalization?”

For the time being, equalization is the answer for some of the poorer provinces. This is why, when discussing the new fiscal arrangements, the new fiscal agreement that should be discussed and negotiated between the federal government and the provinces, each party can have satisfaction.

For instance, if Quebec can have more leeway to do things in a certain way, so much the better. If Newfoundland and Labrador need something else, why not? The “à la carte” was used, and why not? Canada is such a vast country that trying to standardize everything might be difficult. However, we on this side can complain all we want, move all the motions we want, ask all the questions we want, if the need for a new fiscal arrangement is not recognized, we will get nowhere.

One thing has to be understood: if the federal government had been in the provinces' place and had experienced a huge and unilateral cut in its revenues, the Liberals would have protested vociferously. We maintain that this fiscal rebalancing is more than needed.

To get back to the Séguin commission, some people are sure to play politics with it. We all are political animals.

We have to look at the basics of the report. Basically, and there is a consensus everywhere in Canada on this issue, it asks that the provinces be given the same revenues as in fiscal 1993-94 and that these revenues be adjusted over a certain period. The Bloc Quebecois talked about a five year period. In our campaign platform, we also talked about a five year period to review this.

Actually, we said that it made no sense to hand out a cheque right away. In our campaign platform, and even before, we had mentioned five years. Five years would be sufficient to determine the effects and to find new mechanisms for fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces.

So, clearly, everybody agrees to ensure that the same amount of money should be made available and that the federal government cannot pull the plug on these revenues, as we know what it is like. So, we are talking about a new agreement including a protective clause.

Protection can take two forms. Transferring taxes is one thing, but transferring the GST is another. However, a dispute settlement mechanism is needed. Within the federation, we need to be able to communicate on a permanent basis. The House will recall that this is what we said in our 1997 election platform as well. There needs to be a permanent entity so that the federal government and the provinces can communicate with one another and reach agreements.

The Séguin report makes the point that there must be consensus. Quebec cannot go to the bargaining table alone. All the provinces must be there. Quebec has allies in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, on Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland, in Alberta. It has allies everywhere. The richest provinces will benefit from a new fiscal arrangement. All provinces will.

It will provide our western friends with an opportunity to talk about issues that have frustrated them for years and to do so at the same table. There is consensus on this in Quebec. Quebec will become a leader with the other provinces. It is up to us, here, to convince the government to sit down with its provincial partners. If there is consensus in Quebec, I am sure that there is consensus in Nova Scotia and in all the provinces, all the way to Alberta.

If there is consensus in the provinces, all that is missing is national consensus in this parliament. Again, one player is missing right now; the Liberal members opposite. They are denigrating what is being done. They are playing with the figures. Whether the federal government is putting 14¢, 20¢ or 25¢ into health—we cannot even get accurate figures—that is not the problem. It is a consequence of a problem. The problem is the way the federal government handles its fiscal relations with the provinces. It must review and reinvent its entire approach.

I ask the House to consider the motion put forward today. I urge the government opposite to vote in favour. Why would the government not vote in favour? What a wonderful message it could send. The best signal the government could give would be to say, “Yes, we are going to review that. We barely avoided a recession and we are going to review the fiscal arrangements in this country”.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this very important issue, namely the role of the federal government versus provincial governments, regarding taxation.

Let me say from the outset that we will be pleased to support the motion of our Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

It is too easy for the government party to criticize the principles that brought Bloc Quebecois members to Ottawa, and to discredit their motion today and other motions. The parliamentary spirit displayed in the replies given by the government party will not promote a solution to the situation.

First, I would like to state a fact. The issue is the credibility of the existing tax imbalance. There is a lot of talk about the Séguin report. I hope that the majority of government members from Quebec took the time to at least read the summary of that report. I think they will learn a thing or two.

However, they should be careful when they criticize the Séguin report on the grounds that there is a PQ or sovereignist flavour to it. I remind them that, in October, the Quebec Liberal Party, which, as far as I know, is not sovereignist, said the following regarding the tax imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, on page 86 of a document:

This is why we believe that it is critical that the federal government and the Canadian provinces, particularly Quebec, agree on a new distribution of the tax base. Indeed, new fiscal arrangements would ensure a better balance between the revenues and the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments.

I continue reading from page 86. This is not from the Séguin commission, it is from the Quebec Liberal Party. The expression “tax imbalance” is not used only by one political party, but by all the stakeholders in the Canadian provinces, with the exception perhaps of the government party. The Quebec Liberal Party says:

This is why, in order to address this tax imbalance between the federal and provincial governments, the committee is asking for an in-depth review of tax fields, particularly as regards personal and corporate income tax, and a transfer of tax points, without reducing equalization payments.

This is from a document released by the Quebec Liberal Party, in October 2001. The Séguin report says essentially the same thing.

Before talking about the Séguin commission and the motion put forward by the Bloc, let us ask ourselves what the other provinces think about that.

The Atlantic provinces called for adjustments in the equalization system. The poorer provinces want to become richer and are asking to be given the tools they need to do so. The government said no. The former premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, who came back to the federal cabinet and then made a hasty exit to go to the private sector said, “I promise you that, in returning to the federal scene, I will deal with the issue of equalization to eliminate the ceiling for natural resources, so that the provinces have access to this development tool”. The provinces say that there is a fiscal imbalance. That is what we hear.

The government always shows the same kind of arrogance. It says, “Of course, the provinces want our money. The federal government has money and the provinces want it. But it is ours. It is our responsibility”.

However, we have to understand the provinces. When the federal government decided to slash, who had to bear the brunt of the cuts? The provinces. Now they say that the federal government has more money than before and that it would just be normal for them to get their fair share.

In 1997 and in 2000, we, in the Conservative Party, were in favour of restoring transfer payments to the provinces to their 1993-94 level. We did not want a piecemeal approach. We wanted a long term vision. The federal government said that tax point transfers were not a solution. However, as soon as we talk to it about the CHST, it replies that we also have tax points. This means that tax points are a development tool for the provinces.

That requires cooperation. During question period, our leader asked “Could the government, the Minister of Finance, sit down and examine the issue with its provincial counterparts?” They are completely sidestepping the point when they say there is no fiscal imbalance.

In Quebec, two separate reports, published within six to eight months, prove the contrary. Atlantic provinces premiers have said the contrary, and so do all the premiers of the country. At the federal level, people are blind to that. All opposition parties are saying it. The truth is on the other side of the House according to them.

As I said to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, each time they move forward one row, their arrogance increases exponentially. Each time the federal government talks with the provinces, it displays the same arrogance. They discredit the provinces. If that is what federalism is all about for the Liberal Party, it is high time for a change.

They could at least look at the report and say that it is not so easy to transfer the GST to the provinces. They could even have a dig at the Quebec government and talk about the provincial sales tax rate, because it is a well-known fact that, in 1979, the Quebec government took part of the sales tax from the municipalities of the province. They could say that. At least there would be a debate. As things are now, there is no debate. The problem is only being swept under the rug.

It is relatively easy to summarize the conclusions set out in the massive report of the Séguin commission. The provincial governments are calling for a reform of the tax base to enable them to meet the needs under their jurisdiction according to the constitution. That is all. They have suffered cuts of tens of billions of dollars since 1993-94. They are now saying “Listen, we have been fleeced for almost a decade. We will not ask for money anymore, but we will call for a total reform of the tax agreement in Canada. We will write it down”.

This is why the provinces are asking for tax points They are afraid of being tricked again. The federal government always uses its spending power to say it invested in health. It criticizes the Bloc, as I was saying earlier, it criticizes the Conservatives and all the parties when it says that the 14¢ is not true. Even the government does not know. Can we talk?

We can put other solutions on the table. We suggested that the total amount of the Canada social transfer be eliminated. At the health standing committee I asked Mr. Romanow if he thought it would be a good idea that before making a major change we agree on figures so that our friends, the people opposite, could have the same figures as everybody else. It might be a good idea to separate the envelopes that are reallocated so that we know where exactly the money is going. That being said, there is a great need to review the agreements.

Incidentally, I wish good luck to my hon. colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot in his reflection over the next few weeks, not knowing whether his riding will be faced with federal byelections. Surely, whatever the hon. member does, he will always have something useful to contribute and will always be an ace in politics, at both the federal and provincial levels. The hon. member has done and continues to do a very good job here in Ottawa. I am sure that if he decides to run in Quebec, even though we do not share the same point of view about the country and Quebec within Canada, he will be an asset for the government of Quebec.

That being said, let us look at what some other provinces have asked. Earlier on, I was talking about the Atlantic provinces. On March 23, 2001, Premier Hamm said, “For Nova Scotia to be successful, first, we have to enhance our Canadian colleagues' understanding and awareness”. I think the Premier of Nova Scotia is right. Here in Ottawa, we should be more open-minded toward the provinces, stop being arrogant and show some leadership. We have been asking the government for a long time to show leadership when there is a problem.

As an aside, wait and see what will happen if pressure is applied, if the pressure is strong enough. Before the House is prorogued, if it were to be prorogued, the government will start talking about it, but in different terms. We will see what will happen then.

If ever the House were prorogued and there was a Speech from the Throne, I cannot bet on it as it is illegal, but I would still take you out for supper, Mr. Speaker if the government were to talk about new tax arrangements for the country and seize the opportunity for all kinds of good and bad reasons.

The pressure is mounting. It is not partisan. It does not come from Quebec only. It comes from everywhere. When we talk with our colleagues across the way on an individual basis they acknowledge it. Taking away tens of billions of dollars from the provinces is not something that goes unnoticed. In their ridings Liberal members are being chastized for having a Minister of Finances who cannot count when it comes to surpluses.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot explained it quite well. They say there is no surplus, and that times are tough. I remember back in December when the budget was introduced, the Minister of Finances said they would establish a foundation with a budget of several billion dollars for major infrastructure projects if they had any money left. I remember everybody burst out laughing saying he had money hidden all over the place. Nine months later, $13 billion appeared out of nowhere, times were not that tough after all. He is hiding it for two reasons. He knows his Liberal friends well: they want to spend the money too. We know how they like to spend, not invest, spend. Second, he wants to avoid too much pressure from the provinces, so he hides it all over the place, one billion here, one billion there; they would use so many billions should this or that happen—

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make before asking my question. First, the closer the member is getting to the front seats, the more arrogant she is becoming, that is clear.

Second, since she is questioning long term previsions, I will remind her that her colleague, the finance minister, is making forecasts over five years. However, she is suggesting that two year forecasts are essential, and should even be the raison d'être.

The figures given by the Bloc Quebecois are widely criticized. I remind the hon. member that I am a member of the Conservative Party and that I criticize her figures and her approach.

That being said, the hon. member wanted to criticize the 14, 18 and 20 cents of the federal government in health care. Can she tell us how much it is contributing to health care?

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois knows very well the role municipalities play in security matters. Does he think that municipalities should play a major role in port security for instance?

Does he agree with the Senate committee calling for a public inquiry on security? We have heard claims that some employees have criminal records. Is it true or false, and what percentage are we talking about? Would he agree to a formal public inquiry, sponsored by parliament, to examine the issue of port security?

[Economic development, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, before concentrating on the motion brought forward by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, I would like to condemn the comments made by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. I think he should go on a little tour of the regions of Quebec from a tourism as well as an economic point of view.

For example, he could see that the CFDCs, which were created through the LaPrade fund, among others, thanks to the participation of both the federal and provincial governments, are necessary. To say that the tax rate will be reduced does not mean much for a region where people are not working because of the economic downturn. Of course, nothing is perfect. But we still have to recognize that the government of Quebec and all the stakeholders are doing a good job. The Government of Canada lacks vision, and I will talk about that, but the involvement of governments is necessary.

It took years and years to settle the regions. Now they are left to their own devices. Money was spent to encourage people to move to the regions. Now it is normal to provide incentives to encourage people to stay there. Governments always played a role and will continue to do so.

Having said this, I will now going back to the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I find that it is necessary for rural and resource regions to take charge. I hope that governments will recognize this, particularly the federal government.

The hon. member will remember that when he used to turn blue rather than red, when he was a fellow Conservative, when FedNor was created, in 1987, the Conservatives were in office. The hon. member was a fellow Conservative member representing the same region, where he is still much appreciated by the people. At the time, there was the whole issue of designated areas, resource areas.

For example, my region is not in the north. I come from an asbestos town, Asbestos, of which I was the mayor for 11 years. A television series on the 1949 strike is just beginning. People should watch it.

At the time, the government said, “We must get involved in resource regions, in designated areas, in regions that have needs”. That resulted in the creation of a number of tools. That government had vision. The economic context was unfavorable; there were economic crises, downturns and recessions.

Today, the vast majority of CFDCs, which used to be CFCs, work well. The famous LaPrade fund, the Richmond—Wolfe industrial development fund, named after the former name of my riding, needs money. It is one of the funds that works best to help small businesses come start up and expand, or make it through a difficult period. The Centre d'aide aux entreprises du Val-Saint-François was also refused the help that it asked for.

Yes, the CFDC in Asbestos did get additional help, but it still needs financial assistance. It is working well. Things are not perfect, but it is operating well.

However, a vision is necessary. It must be recognized that northern Quebec—and I agree with the hon. member on this—has a specific problem. These are resource regions and they are far from major urban centres. The Lac-Saint-Jean region is one of the country's beautiful regions, but it is remote. For example, if we talk about transportation costs, there is an additional cost, but it is a societal choice and governments must recognize this and get involved.

The member spoke about St. Valentine's Day; if he can convince his colleagues to invest more in the regions, of course we will support him. But care must be taken to avoid duplication, as the Bloc Quebecois member so eloquently said. We need to look at what the federal government is doing, particularly with the Canada-Quebec agreement on employability measures. There are fewer problems. The federal government is providing financial support. As for subsidies, I think that the Canadian Alliance should stop using this word, because this is financial assistance of various sorts, but primarily in the form of loans.

The main reason is that, with the free trade agreement, there are consequences. If a subsidy is provided, and a company performs so well that it exports to the United States, this is direct government assistance and the company can have trouble exporting its products. We see what this can do with Bombardier and Embraer in terms of loans.

The system has changed and evolved because of globalization. Now, loans are made with or without a moratorium on the capital and on the interest, depending on the organization. Quebec is still ill-equipped financially, despite what the Government of Quebec has done.

I am not accusing the Government of Quebec, but the facts speak for themselves. I do not live in the beautiful regions of northern Quebec. I live 45 minutes from Sherbrooke. We have an asbestos mine. Since it is the only asbestos mine that has not been nationalized, if we do not help it out, it is not going to make it.

It is great that a television series has been made about a city which changed the entire labour movement in Quebec and in part of Canada, but unless it gets a financial and political boost to its working capital, it will go under.

My Liberal colleague from Frontenac--Mégantic is doing a very good job. A policy on the use of asbestos would cost nothing. We are still waiting for such a policy. I hope that the government will move quickly on this, and I am confident that it will do so.

So, there are resource regions, rural regions, single industry economies and dual industry economies. After two and a half years of efforts and investments on the part of municipalities—I was a mayor and warden in those days—we finally attracted an industry tailored to our strengths and weaknesses: the asbestos industry. Noranda invested $1 billion in our region. Asbestos will become the biggest magnesium producer in the world.

However, had we not made it to that point, had we not had the financial resources required to put our ideas forward, had it not been for the investments made by the municipal government and the help from other governments, we would have missed that opportunity. The government is responsible for the redistribution of efforts, but also for the redistribution of tools. That was important.

My colleague has once again raised a major point. In Quebec, we speak more and more about rural areas and resource areas. We speak about what happened in the eighties under the Tory government. However, now is not the time for petty politics. There are no political colours when someone is going hungry and is about to lose his job in a region, in the country, in Quebec, in the North or in a mining town.

I take this opportunity to praise him. I very much appreciated the last or next to last speech by my colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, when he criticized the government concerning air transportation. We sometimes wonder if it is worth speaking out. But, with what is going on and the reactions of the finance minister who is now talking about reviewing the charge, it is worth speaking out.

We are suggesting that the members should be able to speak more freely. We are all part of a political family, but we should be able to criticize each other in an appropriate way, just as it is done in a family. I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik both personally and in public on his efforts with respect to issues like the airport charge introduced in the last budget. His efforts are beginning to pay off, and we should get favourable results.

Now, I hope this motion will make everybody more aware of the issue. It is not because unemployment is at a certain level in one place that everything is fine everywhere. It is just not true. When everything is fine, we should be investing. When one has no job, one does not save any money or invest in RRSPs, and one does not invest in the future. Thank heavens, we are coming out of the recession. Now is the time to invest and use all the opportunities as best we can.

I hope that the government members will support this motion and that our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will understand the important role governments should play in regional development. It is not just important, it is crucial. If governments do not look after the regions, who will?

[Privilege, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice to that of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois regarding the timing chosen by the government member to raise this question of privilege. While recognizing of course your authority in this matter, I would remind you that it looks like a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The member gave several examples of things that have been said outside the House about the Minister of National Defence.

May I point out that the Minister of National Defence himself makes comments outside the House, talks to reporters, even says that he is willing to go back before the committee and analyzes the evidence given in committee by the two highest ranked officers at DND. So if there is someone to blame, it should be the Minister of National Defence, who himself talks outside the House about what is going on in committee.

I think it is a matter of credibility. Moreover, it was bad timing to raise this question of privilege at this time. However, I will repeat that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.