Debates of Feb. 15th, 1999

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The value of the product, sure. That is what I talked about in my speech as well, the value of pulse crops. The value of a tobacco crop in Ontario is certainly different than the value of a canary crop in Saskatchewan. How does the government come to a formula that is workable and fair to everyone with all of those different codicils and amendments to it?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's remarks with interest. I wonder if he shared the same observation that I made when I was looking through the transfer payments that were made to the province of Saskatchewan over the years. My friend will know that Saskatchewan in some years has been a have province and in other years it has been a have not province. Did he notice the correlation between which political party was in office during the have years and which political party was in office during the have not years?

If my friend did not read the reports, it is interesting to notice that subsequent years of Liberal and Conservative governments inevitably resulted in the province becoming heavily indebted and therefore qualifying for equalization payments. Then the CCF or the NDP would be elected and over two or three years balance the books and get into a situation where there was no deficit and therefore lost the status of a have not province.

There is a curious relationship between political parties and being in and out of debt. Did my friend notice that when he was looking at these statistics?

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Kamloops for his great intervention on Saskatchewan provincial politics.

Since I live there and he does not, I can tell him that being a have not province regardless of who is governing us is not a great thing to be. Regardless of what government has been in Saskatchewan the problem we have seen is that we still have not fulfilled the potential we have in that great province. We have the resources, the pioneering spirit and the entrepreneurial drive.

Under the NDP government we have seen in the last number of years utility rates rather than taxes go through the roof. Those are not part of the equalization system. We have seen a 9% PST hike and we have backed off a little on that. Roads are in terrible disarray. Health care is abysmal with waiting lines that are unacceptable.

It does not seem to matter what government is in power. It still comes down to some cash transfers from the federal government that everybody relies on. It becomes a disincentive to get out there and make things happen on your own.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I was not listening correctly. I heard if not disparaging remarks about the equalization program, faint praise of that program.

The equalization program is one of all sorts of links and flows which make up this Confederation. In this case it is not some form of charity which is being given to provinces which at this moment under the formula are defined as being have not.

For example, with the case of the province of Saskatchewan, the flows back to the Confederation of the other provinces includes the wonderful health care system we have now. This is something which Saskatchewan has given to us. It was developed there and tried out there and the whole country was able to take it up. It has flourished in a sense.

The member mentioned oil in particular. I do not think he understands that the equalization part which has to do with oil is arranged so it reflects the price of oil, the cost of the production of oil in the province to which the equalization payments are directed. This is very clear on looking at the simulation I have here of equalization changes.

Is the member really saying that he does not like the equalization program? Also, does he not think that every five years there should be a thorough review of it so it reflects current conditions across the country?

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about the cost of the production of oil. Newfoundland's is maybe higher offshore. The problem in Saskatchewan is that it is very heavy crude that we are trying to pump. We are into steam recovery. We are into upgrading it and all sorts of things. We have costs involved as well. I am saying that if the formula gets so convoluted and tough to work with it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare.

As I said in my speech, the average family in Alberta earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year pays 9% more in taxes than it receives in government services. The tax load has to be higher from Alberta, a have province, to subsidize a have not province like Saskatchewan next door. Those are the facts. Those are the government's numbers.

When we speak about health care in Saskatchewan, we have closed 57 hospitals in the last number of years. We are still spending $300 million more in health care than we did before we closed those hospitals. We have fewer doctors and nurses. We have longer waiting lists. We have a horrendous amount of administrators, facilitators, co-ordinators and all sorts of paper pushers and nobody servicing anybody who is ill. It is not acceptable.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we are discussing equalization payments, what we are trying to do is establish a level playing field for Canadians no matter where they happen to live in the country.

One of the critical areas as we enter the knowledge based economy of the 21st century is access to education.

Does my hon. friend share the view that perhaps it is time to be bold when it comes to funding education and eliminate tuition fees? Tuition fees across the country come to about $3 billion. We have a surplus of between $10 billion and $15 billion. If the Minister of Finance wished, we could actually eliminate all tuition fees from post-secondary institutions like most of the other OECD countries did long ago. Would the member support this notion?

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting concept to have everyone receive more education. That is definitely a laudable goal. We are into a knowledge based economy. Canada leads the world in a lot of the technology.

I do not think it is feasible to eliminate tuition fees. I would certainly like to see the government rather than direct money to the university, the physical structure and all the things that go with it, to redirect it to the actual students so the students control the outcome of their own education.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe I will be splitting my time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have to advise the members we are at the stage of 10 minute speeches with no questions and comments. The hon. member has 10 minutes.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am being heckled by members of my own caucus, but for good reason. Since it is a 10 minute address with no opportunity for questions and comments, I will just have to put my points across.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to my friend for interrupting his remarks.

Unfortunately we have just been informed that we have reached the 10 minute period during which the standing orders do not allow for any questions and comments. Because of the interesting exchange we have been having, I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to allow 10 minutes at the end of the member's presentation to have questions and comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed that it was this side of the House that would not allow questions and comments. I do thank the hon. member for asking for unanimous consent.

What really matters in this place is the debate that goes on between the parties. I would welcome a response to some of the perhaps mildly critical points I wish to make with regard to some of the comments and the process that is going on here.

I have heard members from all parties talk about their concern that we are operating under time allocation on this bill. Time allocation is a very interesting process which has been used by all governments in this place and across the country when there is an obstreperous and obtrusive opposition party which simply wants to oppose and stop the government's agenda from going forward. It does not have to be based on any kind of solid rationale. It simply has to be based on the fact that opposition members got out of bed this morning and said “We not know what is going on in the House but we are opposed to it”. That is their mentality when they come to work.

The only option for a government, particularly a majority government that wants to get on with the business of Canada, the business of concerned Canadians, is to use the parliamentary tools that are available. This happens to be one of them.

It is also interesting that opposition members would claim that there has not been a dialogue or discussion. In fact, the proposed amendments here are the result of over two years of extensive consultations and review of the equalization program by the federal government and the provinces.

It is rather interesting that the opposition members would suggest there has not been an opportunity for dialogue. In fact, those who are most directly affected by this equalization program are the provincial governments, the people in the provinces. I think they agree it is important that we get on with the renewal of this particular program.

It is important when people use words, particularly in this place, that we try to understand what they mean because they can be clouded. They can be hidden. They can actually be tricky the odd time.

I heard a member from the Reform Party say that the Reform Party is interested in seeing equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Interesting. Put that together with the question that was asked of him by one of the hon. members opposite about tuition fees in universities. I would say that equality of opportunity to the Reform Party simply means that there should be an opportunity to attend post-secondary education somewhere in the country but equality of outcome which Reform is opposed to means that they are going to have to pay whatever it is the Reform Party decides to pass on.

We as the national government believe not only in equality of opportunity but also in equality of outcome. They must go together, otherwise we end up with disparities around the country where the rich will be able to afford to send their sons and daughters to universities and colleges, but the majority of Canadians will not. That is what it means if we look at putting the opportunity there but do not worry about the outcome or the mechanisms that are put in place to help Canadians.

I refer to a speech that was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Reform Party. This is important because it is an example of a party whose members will stand and say what they think Canadians want to hear and then they will change the words. Let me share some examples.

The Leader of the Official Opposition said in a speech on this bill “I do not think it can be stressed enough that equalization is an important principle which makes our federation work”. One would assume by that statement that he would be in support of the bill. I do not want to take it out of context but it is a reasonable assumption, it makes the federation work. Then he goes on to say the official opposition, the Reform Party, is committed to equalization and has been from the outset. Once again one would think that he is indicating that he supports this.

I remember the Ross Perot presidential campaigns in the United States. We know that most of Reform's positions come out of American policies. Ross Perot would point to a chart and it would be a matter of if you want to know why the car does not run, you have to open up the hood and look at the engine. Terrific.

The Leader of the Opposition goes to the Ross Perot school of politics. He wants four columns. This makes equalization clear to him. It is sort of like a game show.

Column one would show what the province would receive through simple equal per capita grants in support of social programs. There is nothing in column one to deal with geography. Take a look at what we are going to see when Nunavut starts up. They are having their elections today.

The per capita grant in Nunavut for reasons of climate, geography and demographics will be substantially higher than the per capita grant for Saskatchewan or somewhere else in the country. It seems fair that we do not simply look at the number of people who exist in a particular province or territory, but we deal with the real issues. How do these people survive? But not in the Ross Perot school, and I cannot say the Leader of the Opposition's name of course, since it is unparliamentary—but not in that school of economics and politics.

Column two would show what the province would receive in terms of enhanced and better focused equalization. He is somehow going to magically top it up. That is the name of the game. If you get the right column maybe there is a top up. It just depends, we are not sure.

Column three would show what the people and employers would receive through tax cuts. While he wants to top up the equalization plan with increased transfers, he is also going to cut taxes.

It reminds me of the Reform Party's position on health care funding. It said that it would put 50% of the surplus toward tax relief, 50% of the surplus toward paying down the debt and the other 50% that it will somehow magically manufacture I suppose will go to health care. It is voodoo economics without question.

Number four would give the total of all this. I am not quite sure whether this is reinventing the wheel or gamesmanship or a show business mentality, trying to be different. I do not see the substantive benefits in any way whatsoever. I mentioned we have to be careful about interpreting the words used by people who speak in this House.

This is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition: “The premiers should take off their premiers' hats for just a day and put on their political leaders' hats. I assure those provincial leaders who favour reform of the federation over fossilized federalism”—if that is not Ross Perot I do not know what is—“that they will find an ally in federal Reformers united to create a better alternative to this bankrupt administration”.

Very interesting. I have finally discovered where the words united alternative came from. In reality we are hearing that if the premiers will forget about their responsibilities to represent all the people of the province, whether those people voted for them or not, and if the premiers will simply put on their partisan political hats, then the Reform Party will line up beside them.

This is a group of people who do not even understand the traditional significance of the equalization system in this country that ensures Canadians from sea to sea to sea have equal opportunity and equal outcome to ensure that they and their families will have access to all social programs and economic development programs in this country. It is astounding to me that Reformers would be opposed to a bill that would share the wealth throughout this great land.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to bring this debate back to Bill C-65. It is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and to speak to this bill, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. As we know from previous speakers, the primary objective of this bill is to renew the federal equalization program for another five years.

I will not take time to simply recount what my caucus colleagues and the leader of the official opposition have said with respect to Bill C-65. It has been repeated and eloquently stated by the Reform Party and the people of Canada that they do support the principle of equalization. That is very important to remember. We support the principle of equalization, but that does not mean we cannot improve the delivery vehicle.

Equalization transfers will amount to nearly $9 billion this year alone and will account for 8% of all federal program spending. That is an incredible amount of money. Yet with regard to one of the government's largest expenditure items the Liberal government recoils from any real scrutiny.

It is absolutely shameful that the government gave the House a single day's notice that it would introduce this bill. It is shameful that it did this without asking Canadians whether equalization adequately served their needs. The government claimed there were two years of consultations yet we had one day's notice of this legislation's coming before the House. It is shameful for this government to invoke closure after only one day of debate. We have seen that over and over again in the House. It is shameful that the government is ramming this legislation through to avoid any real debate or accountability.

Let us not dwell on those acts but talk about the details of this bill. I want to address the misinformation we hear from the members opposite. I reiterate that we support the principle of equalization throughout this great country. A common theme among proponents is that this program works so well that it does not need our full attention. They say things like the formula is absolutely clear, transparent, simple. I have heard it being referred to as scientific. A few members a few moments ago said it is very clear.

I would argue that the opponents opposite are wrong. It is absolutely not transparent. It is not clear. It is not scientific nor is it precise.

Let us just look at the legislation. The general formula is laid out in section 4 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is very important that we read the facts and this is what the formula states:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this part, the fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for a fiscal year is the amount, as determined by the minister, equal to the greater of

(a) the product obtained by multiplying

(i) the aggregate of the amounts obtained by subtracting, for each revenue source, the per capita yield in that province for the revenue source for that fiscal year from the average per capital yield of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the revenue source for that fiscal year by

(ii) the population of the province for that fiscal year, and

(b) zero.

That is the equalization formula, word for word right out of the act. I have to note that days before Premier Tobin in Newfoundland called his election he automatically received $30 million, the exact amount of Newfoundland's deficit, so he could say he balanced the books before he called the election and that met this formula.

I am only a short way into my 20 minutes so I will try to get right down to it. I see some members are not interested as we get to the facts and give them the specifics of this.

It is a natural response to the bureaucratese that those members claim is so transparent and it is not even worth debating. We need a formula that will work, that is truly equalization, and I will get to offering alternatives.

Thousands of Canadians could be asked about that formula I just read and they would not be able to decipher it. Even most people in this Chamber, members who are used to reading legal jargon, would have to carefully read and reread, mull it over for a few minutes and attempt a guess. Then the 301 members of this Chamber could be asked to give their definition of how the formula works. I suggest there would be 301 different answers.

Even if it could be figured out there is a mountain of preparatory calculations that needs to be made before actually making the transfers. An army of specialized economists is needed to calculate the revenue base and the per capita yield of each province for 31 separate revenues. I would wager there is not one member here who could list 31 revenue sources without looking at notes.

This is all out of the formula. It creates a bureaucracy, a glass tower of people even to come up with this formula. They work all year long on it. There are all kinds they have to look at, personal income tax, corporate income tax, corporate capital tax, general miscellaneous sales taxes, harmonized sales tax, amusement tax, fuel tax, motor vehicle, alcohol, medical, forestry, mining, water rentals, and the list goes on and on. I have pages of them here.

There are more such as provincial and municipal property taxes, racetrack tax and lottery ticket sales. All these have to go through pages and pages of formulations for every single province to come up with this formula.

To suggest it is not politicized is absolutely ludicrous. In only a stroke of a pen the province of Newfoundland received $30 million to balance the books before the premier called the election the next day. He had a balanced budget.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the amendments laid out in Bill C-65 are complex and confusing to say the least. They are nothing compared to the actual calculations made by the finance department number crunchers.

I have here the results of the revenue source calculations. I have done my homework and looked at this. I do not know if I can get into this in 10 minutes. There are pages and pages of calculations in this book. Each line is a very small step. I cannot get into them all. They have to go through this for every single one of the revenue sources for every single province.

There are 95 general steps for each revenue source for each of the 10 provinces. That is nearly 1,000 separate calculations. They are all added up, it goes on and on and in the end we have tens of thousands of calculations done by the number crunchers.

The point I am trying to make is that we have this simple, clear, transparent amending formula that creates a huge mountain of bureaucracy.

Yes, I believe in equalization for all 10 provinces. I have travelled this country from coast to coast to coast. I believe in this country and that is why I am standing in the House. We could not have a better country. But just because that is the way it has been done for 50 years does not mean that is the way it has to stay. There are better vehicles to do this than the bureaucracy we have created.

Of the members asked how will the Reform Party meet its financial numbers, 50% to tax reduction and 50% to debt. The other numbers come from reducing the size of government, eliminating these bureaucracies.

There must be a simpler way. As the leader of the official opposition, the finance critic and a number of my colleagues have pointed out, we simply cannot stand back and tinker with federal-provincial financial relations, with something so important and so complex and convoluted we need a task force to consult with policy experts and others. We need to talk about substantive reform and about the three pillars that finance our social services. We need to rethink our tax policy, rethink Canadian health and social transfers and rethink equalization. We need to look at all three because they are tangled up together. They are interrelated.

Real reforms, real improvements mean first of all we must simplify and rationalize federal transfers by providing equal per capita grants to all provinces for social purposes. Second, we should simplify and refocus the equalization program even more to low income provinces. Third, we must introduce substantive broad based tax relief to increase disposable incomes of Canadians.

These are issues we must address to improve the social and economic well-being of our citizens. We need to debate these issues and we need to act now. We do not need the status quo. Liberal tinkering and half measures that continue to prop up our fossilized federalism are not the way to go.

I could not in good conscience support Bill C-65. I urge all members to reject this bill and demand the government introduce real improvements to Canada's social policy.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-65.

I differ a bit from my friend who just spoke. At this second reading stage we will be supporting Bill C-65 but with a little qualification. I think it is fair to say that when we look at the formula for determining the equalization payments, it is appropriate that in committee we examine this in considerable detail. I think my hon. friend who just spoke pointed out the reason for that, that this is a complicated formula and if we are to pass this legislation beyond committee stage it is crucial that we examine that.

I want to use this as an opportunity to point out one other aspect, to simply note the various revenue sources that are identified: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, taxes on capital corporations, general and miscellaneous sales taxes, harmonized sales taxes, amusement taxes, tobacco taxes, motor fuel taxes, non-commercial motor vehicle licence revenues, commercial motor vehicle licence revenues, alcoholic beverage revenues, hospital and medical care insurance premiums, forestry revenues, conventional new oil revenues, conventional old oil revenues, heavy oil revenues, mined oil revenues, light and medium third oil revenues, heavy third oil revenues, revenues from domestically sold natural gas, revenues from exported natural gas, sales of crown leases, sales of reservations on oil and natural gas lands, oil and natural gas revenues other than those just described, mining revenues, water power rentals, insurance premium taxes, payroll taxes, provincial local government property taxes, race track taxes, revenues from lottery ticket taxes, revenues from games of chance taxes, miscellaneous provincial taxes, provincial revenues from sales of goods and services, local government revenues from sales of goods and services, miscellaneous local government taxes and revenues.

I think I have made my point. A lot of taxes have been identified in this legislation. It seems to me that it would be appropriate for us to ask the question whether these individual taxes make sense. At the time they were introduced I think it is fair to say there was probably some rationale behind them. People thought they were appropriate social or economic policy taxes.

It is important now to identify each and every one of these tax exempt areas and factor in a cost benefit analysis. What is the cost to the taxpayer and what is the benefit? If it is not clear that there is a benefit then these taxes should be dropped. It is a recommendation that any fair-minded person would agree with.

Obviously I am not arguing against the principle of the bill. The whole principle of equalization and having a level playing field for Canadians no matter where they live in terms of access to social programs, education, health care opportunities and economic opportunities is absolutely crucial.

Canada is all about the Canadian family. It differentiates us from any other countries. Whether one lives in an isolated part of Canada, on the east coast, on the north coast, on the west coast or in central Canada, one will have relatively the same access to programs. That is what the country is all about. That is what a civilized country is all about. That is what Canada is all about. This program helps facilitate that whole idea.

Let us not be so arrogant that we think it cannot be improved. That is what we are saying. While the principle is fundamental to the Canadian ethic, it is imperative when the legislation reaches committee that we determine whether this is the most appropriate way.

I have heard my friend and others raise the point about the Premier of Newfoundland and how it would appear that there has been some monkeying around with this equalization bill in order for him to say he had a balanced budget just days before the election, which resulted in a more favourable election result. These are the abuses of the system that if in fact they were the case we have to find ways and means of mitigating them in the future.

In conclusion, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I say that we will support the bill enthusiastically at this stage of principle, but we have many serious questions that we want to ask in committee. We look forwarding to getting it into committee, although not quite in this much of a hurry. We are under time allocation which is, let us face it, an undemocratic use of the rules of the House of Commons.

I would not want to say we can hear jack boots echoing in the hallways just around the corner, but there is something fundamentally wrong when the government starts muzzling Canadian representatives, when it starts saying to the people of Canada that it does not want to hear the view from some part of the country because it has heard enough and wants to close the place down. It wants to muzzle parliament. It wants to bring to an end the democratic process. There is something fundamentally wrong about a government that decides it has heard enough.

I remember a little while back when the Conservatives were on that side and the Liberals were on this side. They would go into a state of absolute hysterics every time some form of time allocation or closure was brought in. They would stand and say this was an element of fascism, undemocratic and un-Canadian, that this was wrong, not right and ought not to occur. Lo and behold there is an election and they flip across to the other side and now they do the same thing more often.

When the Liberals said before the last election that if they became the government they would not act like the Conservatives did in the matter of muzzling parliament we thought they meant less time allocation. We thought they meant less use of closure. They meant more use of closure, more abuse of parliament.

We have to pay very close attention, as my friend said in his presentation, and listen closely to what they are saying. When they say they want to change parliament let us ask them if that means improve parliament or make it less democratic so as to make it perfectly clear in the future.

It is not with much enthusiasm that we now look forward to a vote at the end of the day, but the sooner the bill gets to committee and we find out some of the details, the better we will be able to change and amend the legislation.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a perfect time to reply to several ridiculous statements on the part of the opposition.

When I hear cries of persecution from the Jurassic Park Reform Party, the shirt-rending Bloc Quebecois, or the NDP whited sepulchres, when they know full well that the government has to resolve the situation by March 31 so that the provinces will have the money with which to provide services, I find their egotistical grandstanding very hypocritical.

I am proud to be a member of this party and of this government. Bill C-65 is further evidence of the fact that we care about the public. We want all Canadians, wherever they live, to have access to services. To this end, we have put forward an equalization system that has proven itself year in year out since it was established, in 1957.

When I hear the Bloc Quebecois say—and they do talk a great deal of nonsense, acting persecuted and offended—“We are not getting our fair share”, it makes me feel proud of being not only a Liberal but a Liberal from Quebec because, once again, not only are we going to get our fair share but, with the improvements contained in this bill, Canadians will receive $242 million, 78% of this amount going to Quebec.

Do members want numbers? I feel in great shape. I lost my voice last week, but I got it back.

As we know, Quebec accounts for 24% of Canada's population. Yet, 29% of all equalization payments go to Quebec. That is nearly $1 billion, ladies and gentlemen from Quebec, and then the separatists complain that we are not getting our fair share. Canada is a generous country, so much so that Quebec is getting much more out of the system than it is putting in. This money is coming from all the provinces, and Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta in particular. When we tell the Bloc Quebecois members that, they get upset.

That is probably why the Bloc Quebecois is down to 38%, from 49%, in the polls today. Clearly, the Liberals are taking their responsibilities.

Instead of complaining, the hon. member for Drummond should be listening; it would do her good. In 1996 and 1997, Quebec companies received 39% of all federal government contracts and subsidies to industry for R & D. This is extraordinary. We represent 24% of the total population but Quebec universities received 28% of total subsidies. All the contracts and subsidies to the universities for R & D represent a fair amount.

Again on a regional basis, in science and technology we receive 26%. Truth will out. The separatists are moaning, the Reform Party bunch from Jurassic Park are moaning, while we get on with looking after the interests of the people. This is the first time I have heard dinosaurs speak. I did not realize they could.

The people of Quebec need to be reminded of what the equalization payment system is. It is a system of generosity. It is a system of equity. It is, above all, a system of protection.

Bill C-65 will, whether our separatist friends like it or not, give them an even larger piece of the pie. Not only a bigger piece of the pie, but the province that gets the biggest share among all those receiving equalization payments is Quebec, once again. This is a good reason to stay within the Canadian federation, since it has been demonstrated that not only does this system work, but it is generous to all, from sea to sea.

Once again, this seems not to please the hon. members for Drummond and Témiscamingue. I hear them weeping. The moaning and groaning heard in the background when the truth comes as a shock comes from the other side of the House.

Equalization is important in that it accounts for 10% of the entire budget of Quebec. This means that that we are giving close to $1 billion.

Do not forget that 24% of the population is receiving 29% of the transfer payments. What does all this money represent? Ten per cent of Quebec's budget. That means that, while Bouchard is busy with his little referendum and whines away about Quebec's separation, we are looking out for the people of Quebec, because we say “We are going to give you some money so you can have services”. So while the others rattle on about Quebec's independence, we are providing money to pay for and ensure access to services.

While the other side goes on about “constitutionalitis”, do you know what counts? What counts is that transfer payments are unconditional.

The federal government hands out nearly $10 billion in total. As I said earlier, Bill C-65 provides $242 million to Canadians, 78% of which will go to Quebec. While they go on about “constitutionalitis” on the other side, we recognize one thing: that this federation is showing once again, through its generosity, that we care about the entire population.

Finally, they say “We are stuck with a PQ government in Quebec City”. But one thing is sure: according to the latest polls, support for the people in this government, for the federal Liberals from Quebec, is now 49%—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Oh, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic is in a state again.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate your asking the member for Bourassa to withdraw his statement that we are stuck with the government of Lucien Bouchard in Quebec City. What we are stuck with is the member's Prime Minister but we have not said so.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is part of the debate so I am going to ask—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The truth hurts, but there is no getting around it. While members opposite are constantly playing to the audience—that is what they are doing—I am going to speak some hard truths. I know that Quebeckers are very proud to be represented by Liberal members, because they know that, instead of whining all the time, we take their problems to the ministers and get things done.

One thing is certain: when the MPs representing Quebec are Liberals, the essentials get looked after, and one of those essentials is equalization payments.

As I said, equalization is a system that has proved its worth, a system based on generosity that protects all Quebeckers and ensures that they have access to services.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

What about unemployed workers?