Madam Speaker, today's debate covers a broad range of federal government activities, and this interjection shows how desperately the Bloc Quebecois is trying to bolster support for the scenario rejected by a
The Bloc is obviously hoping to discredit the federal government, but to no avail, for we are seeing a boomerang effect here again today. In fact, this debate provides an opportunity to appreciate the extent of the federal government's prerogatives and responsibilities.
One of these responsibilities is addressed through the fiscal stabilization program created under the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. The purpose of the stabilization program is to provide protection to provinces in the event of extreme downturns in economic activity.
More specifically, provinces faced with a year-over-year decline in revenues due to a downturn in the economy, such as the last recession, have access to financial assistance, subject to specific rules set out in the act.
The compensation authorized by the stabilization legislation is based on the province's year over year absolute decline in a province's eligible revenues subject to three constraints. First, changes made by the province in the rate or in the structure of its provincial taxes must be factored out when measuring revenue declines. The program compensates for revenue declines due to business cycles and not for declines due to provincial decisions to reduce taxes arbitrarily.
Second, declines in resource revenues are subject to stabilization only if and to the extent that the annual decline exceeds 50 per cent. Third, since 1987-1988 the maximum grant payable to a province is limited to $60 per provincial resident. Assistance above that limit is at the discretion of the Minister of Finance and would take the form of an interest free loan. The litmus test in assessing eligibility to the stabilization program is whether there is or was a drop in revenues due to general economic conditions.
The stabilization legislation and regulations provide very detailed rules about how to measure provincial revenues and how to adjust for changes in taxation. It is these very same rules that were applied consistently in dealing with all provincial applications as the act requires us so to do.
Stabilization is a program for exceptionally hard times, which explains why only three provinces have received federal stabilization payments up to 1990. British Columbia received $174 million for the fiscal year 1982-83; Alberta, $419 million for fiscal year 1986-87; and Ontario received $227 million for 1990-91.
In order to be considered for stabilization payments, a province must make a claim to the federal Minister of Finance not later than 18 months after the end of the year to which the claim should be applied.
Last December 7, the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, announced payments totalling $782.4 million in response to applications from the provinces under the stabilization program, including $418 million for fiscal year 1991-92.
These were final payments for 1991-92 in the case of seven applications, and interim payments for 1992-93 in the case of five applications.
Despite all the insidious and unfounded insinuations of the Bloc Quebecois, these applications were processed according to the letter and the intent of the fiscal stabilization program legislation. All provinces were put on the same footing.
The Bloc Quebecois has implied that the federal government used delaying tactics in settling Quebec's claims.
I urge the hon. member who moved the motion before the House today to ask his own leader about the meaning of the term "delaying", since he is an expert on the subject.
With regard to the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Minister of Finance made final payments to five provinces: Newfoundland, $3.1 million; Nova Scotia, $55 million; Prince Edward Island, $5 million; Ontario, $284.4 million; and Manitoba, $42.9 million.
The claims made by two additional provinces, Saskatchewan and Quebec, were found not valid under this rule set out in the act.
Quebec's application for 1991-92 was not approved because there had been no decline in revenue due to the business cycle, which meant that according to the regulations, there could be no compensation. That is all.
There was no question of unfair treatment, political intrigue or partisanship.
The Minister of Finance also has the authority under the legislation to make interim payments to a province where applications are supported by currently available data.
For instance, on December 7, 1994, the finance minister announced that interim payments be made to five provinces based on fiscal year 1992-93, which included $125 million for Quebec. In this case Quebec's application was valid, and the federal government paid.
I dare the Bloc Quebecois to make the same fuss about the payment made to the Government of Quebec for 1992-93 that it made to discredit the federal government concerning payments for the fiscal year 1991-92.
In concluding, decisions by the Minister of Finance on all provincial applications for stabilization are made in accordance with the legislation and regulations. Furthermore, they treat all provinces in a manner that is consistent and fair. These decisions are final.
The stabilization legislation does not provide for arbitration mechanisms. If Quebec wants to challenge the legality of the federal decision, it has one recourse: to appeal before the courts.
Those who call this courtroom federalism do not know what they are talking about. This year, the Government of Canada will pay about $11.7 billion in federal transfer payments to the Province of Quebec. That is what I call constructive and positive federalism.
I will vote against the motion of the Bloc Quebecois because it denies the facts and adds absolutely nothing constructive to this debate.