Debates of May 31st, 2001

Supply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in some respects I do not disagree with the hon. gentleman opposite, but he should be aware of the fact that provincial revenues last year were $181 billion and federal revenues were $166 billion.

We transferred $34 billion to the provinces. We transferred a further $11 billion to the provinces to address their legitimate and real needs and areas of responsibility. I think in some respects that is balanced. I welcome the member to federalism.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the debate that has just taken place, especially when the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot argued that the federal government speaks for itself. In fact the federal government speaks for all Canadians.

That is the point those sovereignists cannot quite get through their heads. The member for Champlain mentioned a race and jurisdictions, but what he neglected to understand and to realize is that we have jurisdiction under the British North America Act and under Confederation for certain areas of responsibilities as do the provinces. We have had a long and glorious history of being able to work that out through co-operation and flexibility and the good, sound judgment that has been used over the course of years.

Be it tax points or outright cash when it comes to provincial moneys and resources, the federal government is part and parcel of how the federation works and underscores the commitment of the Liberal government to make the federation work in a very meaningful and sound way.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about the finance minister being hypocritical and how he was stealing from the EI fund. Unparliamentary or not, both those statements are absolutely wrong. On the contrary, we have seen the present finance minister making adjustments by getting rid of the deficit, paying down the debt and giving balanced tax breaks and money back for important reinvestment initiatives.

That underscores the commitment of the government to all provinces and territories in this great country of ours. It behoves us to think about these things from time to time to bring us back to clear thinking and balance because that is what the government has been able to do since 1993.

The motion before us is of some interest, but it is of more interest to the sovereignists in Quebec City. It is no secret that Pauline Marois, the finance minister and Premier Landry have made it a habit in recent months to come hammering once again at the door of the federal government. All I see are the sovereignists opposite, the Bloc in this case, being kind of head waiters for them, simply bringing their plea to Ottawa and almost acting, unfortunately, as a branch plant of Quebec City for the separatists and the sovereignists.

That aside, there are some genuinely important issues that we need to clear up in the debate. For example, we should note that this has a long history since 1977 when the first tax point transfer was implemented. There was a new agreement at that time called established programs financing, EPF. It helped with education and health in those days. At that time $13.5 billion of personal income tax points were given over to the provinces as well as $1 billion in corporate tax points. We can see the beginnings of the federal government assisting in this tax point area along with cash as well which people always want and provinces especially.

The thing that I find unacceptable is the fact that the sovereignists, the Bloc and some of the provinces seem to think that tax points are not equal to cash, are somehow not as good as cash, or somehow do not provide the cash required. In reality tax points are equal to, as good as and similar in that sense to cash. In German one would say macht nichts aus . It is the same thing. It is half a dozen of one, six of the other.

We keep giving tax points and cash, but why do we do it? We do it because we are in a fiscally sound federation. We understand there are needs that the provinces and territories require, especially in their areas of jurisdiction. The two that obviously come to mind very quickly are health and education. That is why for example in 1996-97 we established the Canada health and social transfers. That is part of the kind of effort the government is prepared to make to ensure that we do the right thing when it comes to our great federation.

I point out that all tax points are resources that flow to the provinces. No matter which way we want to cut it, dice it or slice it, the fact remains those are resources to the provinces. I want to point out too that under the CHST in recent years, the ceiling was established at $11 billion in 1996. It went up to $12.5 billion in 1998, and in 1999 an additional $11.5 billion over five years was added. The CHST cash portion in the year 2000 was $15.7 billion. By the year 2005-06, that will represent $21 billion, which in straight mathematical terms, is a 35% increase.

That represents a government commitment to ensure that money, when we are in a surplus situation, be it tax points or cash, is transferred in a meaningful way to the provincial and territorial partners. We do that to ensure that the federation works in a way that Canadians, wherever they live in this great country, think is appropriate and right and enjoy the fruits of the surplus situation.

The tax transfers provide provinces with additional revenue which increases as a result of economic growth. Those tax transfers have increased sixfold since 1977-78. That is an enormous increase and represents the growing flexibility and ability of the provinces to make sure the transfers are used in their jurisdictions in a way that makes the most sense for them.

By using a mathematical formula, it is projected to the year 2005-06, that the tax transfers will rise to $18.9 billion, which represents a 19% increase over that period of time.

I reiterate that this is great news for the provinces and territories in terms of what we are doing by way of federal transfers, either points or cash. It underscores the commitment of our government to ensure that things go along in a manner consistent with Canadian values.

To recap, it is very important to note that in the year 2001-02, which we are in now, $34 billion will be transferred under the CHST. That represents $15.7 billion under tax transfers and another $18.3 billion in cash, for a total of $34 billion. No matter which way we look at it, and Canadians understand, this is a lot of money that our federal government is prepared to give to the provinces so they can put in place the kinds of resources that the people in those provincial and territories want, need and demand.

It is our government commitment to ensure that kind of balanced approach. Balance, after all, is the key, not twisting it out of joint in one way or the other. Rather balance it out to have the flexibility inherent in good programming and sound fiscal judgment so the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and whole caucus on the Liberal side are able to deliver repeatedly in these all important areas.

I simply have to shake my head when I look at the motion. Of course it is Bloc members trying to play games. They are taking their marching orders as usual from Monsieur Landry and others who are intent on destroying this great country of ours. However, they neglect to remember that the country represents solid good governance and a good economy that has been good for all people no matter where they live. It has provided employment, good salaries and good jobs for people. At the end of the day individuals, families, communities and whole provinces and territories have benefited as a result.

We should rejoice in that because it is the very essence of what our government is able to deliver. That is the very essence of who we are as Canadians, underscoring our values and judgments to make sure that Canadians wherever they live benefit as a result of our good, solid judgment.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many inaccuracies in what the hon. member opposite and his colleagues have said since this morning.

First, in terms of tax points transferred during the 1960s and late 1970s, the principle is the following.

The federal government, mainly during the second world war, had asked the provinces to give up their jurisdiction over personal income tax. The provinces, including Quebec, agreed as their contribution to the war effort.

Under the constitution, which our colleague opposite says he respects, the federal government should never have had this jurisdiction. The federal government stole it from the provinces, because it refused to give it back to them after the war.

As a matter of fact, it was during the 1964 constitutional conference in Quebec City, between Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage, and the 1977 conference, which was held with all provinces, that the federal government decided to give back a part of what it had stolen from provinces, as their contribution to the war effort, in the area of personal income tax, inheritance tax and corporate tax. These areas were not under federal jurisdiction.

The hon. member says that constitutional jurisdictions must be respected, but how does he explain, apart from that, another undeniable fact? During the last four years, namely since the federal government has been raking in huge surpluses with other people's money, it has exponentially multiplied its encroachments on jurisdictions that are exclusively provincial, like education, health, early childhood and the family.

Why is it that this member, a federal member, a government member, cannot understand the facts? He has just talked about principles that go against the practice of the past four years. The transfer of tax points during the 1960s and the 1970s was done as a matter of justice for the provinces, which had generously accepted to lend a jurisdiction which was exclusively theirs under the constitution. Will the hon. member, a superior member of a supposedly superior Canada, understand that?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can get into a great history lesson. We can go back to Sir Robert Borden in 1917 and talk about the temporary income tax. We can talk about Lester Pearson and Jean Lesage until we are blue in the face, but the reality remains, despite the member opposite not seeing it nor would he ever want to, the government does not step in on other jurisdictions.

The government has a solid, sound record of respecting other jurisdictions; Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, I can name any and we respect them. We make sure the divisions of power are inherent, unlike the Bloc members opposite who want to rip apart the federation. They want to destroy the jurisdiction. They want to keep chipping away every time and every way they can to bring Canada down yet another notch.

There are those on this side and most Canadians, including Quebecers, who will have no part of that. They want to get with other things such as providing food, shelter and clothing for their children. They want to get with the business of carving out good lives for themselves, whether they live in Baie-Comeau, St. John's, Newfoundland or Victoria.

Canadians wherever they live respect the integrity of the government's ability to put us on a sound fiscal good judgment basis, and as a result provide good government and in the process give the tax points and cash transfers required for the provinces to carry out their jurisdictional responsibilities in areas like the environment, health and education.

With all due respect to everyone involved, the beauty of this great federation is our ability to manage, be flexible and do the kinds of things Canadians want, wherever they live in this great country, a country that others in the world respect and say is second to none. That is what we do on a constant basis. Why do we do it? We do it for our families, our neighbours, our communities and our country. At the end of the day that is precisely what Canadians want.

We can go off on tangents all we want in terms of too much power here or too much power there. The reality is, the federation has proven itself time and time again to work and work effectively. Is it perfect? No one ever said it was. Is it right all the time? No one ever argued it was. The reality is, this is a federation second to none in the world, worth celebrating, worth boasting about and worth defending. This side of the House will do it every time.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Waterloo—Wellington repeatedly said the government routinely showed sound, fiscal, good judgement.

In my constituency there are over 10,000 people, almost 10% of my constituents, who are living in leaking and rotting homes. The Barrett commission travelled around the province for months and recommended that the federal government not tax and profit off of people losing their homes.

Is it good, sound, fiscal judgment and compassion for the federal government, the squishy Liberals who this member likes to represent, to be profiting from the misery of people and the destruction of their homes?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that is noted by the member is a very tricky and delicate issue. We on this side of the House are looking at ways to assist in this very problematic area. We understand.

I want to go back to the issue of tax points and tax credits. The member's party opposite would give up the store. If we read its election platform, that party would give it all away to the provinces. It would have Canada reduced to a shell. Those members want provincial jurisdiction in everything, and that is unfortunate. Canadians have and will continue to reject that.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for raising such an interesting and important topic.

The future—we are talking mainly about the present—of this federation, which the members opposite think handles finances so well, is shaky. The money collected by the federal government must be redistributed to the provinces, which are responsible for health, education and municipalities. These are responsibilities of the provinces and of Quebec.

But the federal government keeps on building up its surplus and distributing the money to the rich rather than giving it back to the provinces. I say that it is distributing it to the rich because, when it uses the surplus to pay down the debt too quickly, this is not money that goes to the poor, but money that goes to the rich. When the surplus is used to lower taxes, as was done last fall, this is money that has been taken away from the least well off, taxpayers, and redistributed to the richest members of society.

Last year, following the mini budget, which became the main budget, I had my accountant do two calculations for me. I wanted to know what two 35 year old men, one earning $33,000 a year and one earning $100,000 a year, would save in taxes as a result of the new budget. The man earning $33,000 a year saved approximately $300 annually in taxes. The one earning $100,000 a year, or three times more, saved seven times more in taxes, around $2,000.

If that is a fair distribution of money in a society that claims to look out for the poor, that says it wants to help low wage earners, some questions are in order. When members opposite say that they are right to take pride in how they are running this country, I have my concerns.

When the federal government takes $36 billion out of the EI fund and gives people to understand that the money belongs to it, we should be worried.

The employment insurance fund is paid into by workers, and also in part by employers. I have been an employer. What do employers do when setting salaries, when looking at the payroll a company can pay out? They take salaries plus benefits, plus the employer's portion of payments.

In the long run, employment insurance is entirely paid by the workers, because if there were no employment insurance, they would be paid a little more.

When I hear justifications like the one provided earlier in response to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whereby talking about grab in reference to the employment insurance fund is misleading the public, I disagree. In my opinion, that is a precise and accurate description of what the government has done.

The money paid into it by the low wage earners has been used to build up a surplus. Year after year, this continues to be done, at the rate of some $6 billion yearly.

A worker who has trouble making ends meet sees part of his pay taken regularly to be added to the federal government's surplus and distributed later to those least in need of it.

The motion being discussed today is one that relates to respect and honesty. As long as Quebec is part of this system, it is normal for part of the taxes we pay to the federal government to come back to us to help us—Quebec and the other provinces too, it is true—to deliver the services provided by the government of Quebec and the governments of the other provinces.

Education is a provincial area of jurisdiction. Health is a provincial area of jurisdiction. The municipalities are a provincial jurisdiction. So now we see the federal government giving some money back. They are congratulating themselves because, within a few days of the last election, an agreement was reached in the health field.

But what was the cost of this negotiation? How much did it cost in terms of time and energy? What progress has been made?

Did we get what the federal government was supposed to be giving us in the area of health care? No. We have figures that show that the federal government is now paying about 14 cents for each dollar spent in the health care area.

As far as I am concerned, this is a debate that should not even be taking place. People say that the federation is working properly. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has just said that, in the beginning, in the federal system, the tax points belonged to the provinces. If we have made our contribution to the war effort, and if all the provinces have done so, the tax points should be given back.

This has not been done so that, every year, regularly, people would have to come here to get what is owed to them, and to get it the way the federal government agrees to give it to them.

I will give an example. In the area of education, the government decided to set up the millennium scholarship fund. This is unbelievable. Roughly $2 billion has been put into this fund, in an area that is not under federal jurisdiction but rather under provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the government has asked unelected people to manage the fund and it found a way, ignoring provincial responsibilities, to give out scholarships, when we had very good scholarship programs in Quebec. It could simply have given the money to the Quebec government, which is responsible for education.

But no, it found a way to ignore provincial responsibilities. It found a way to play petty politics. It found a way to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, to play petty politics with money that belongs to the provinces. It is even going one step further in Quebec, right now.

It has money to give out, but only in exchange for flags. Our money must be used to promote Canada. This is an absurd situation, and it is the same everywhere.

We recently had a debate on the subject. We saw that getting money from the federal government is tied to distributing flags. Personally—

[An hon. member]

It comes from Canada.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if madam wishes to speak, she may do so when I am done, but I would like to conclude my remarks. I have things to say.

The hon. member will know that, if I came back to politics, it was to say what I just said as often as possible. In the end, I think that we will convince people that it is in Quebec that such problems will be resolved.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is not for a commercial.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Health.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor again, but not for interrupting me. Once one has begun to speak, it would be nice to be able to go on uninterrupted.

I was speaking about provincial jurisdictions. To exercise their responsibilities, the provinces need money, particularly the money which we send to the federal government and which should come back to us. If there were any semblance of political decency here, we would not need a motion such as this one. This reapportionment should be done as a matter of fact. When there are surpluses at the federal level, they should go back to the provinces.

One member opposite said that the federal government is assuming its responsibilities. Let me tell him something. As far as the environment goes, things are not pretty in Quebec, because the federal government just does not assume its responsibilities. Right now, we are trying to have clean up Lac Saint-Pierre, which has been polluted by Canadian army shells. This is under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking for this clean-up for years, but to no avail.

We want to solve the problem along the shores of the St. Lawrence, which are being eroded. Land is being lost to erosion because of transportation. This is under federal jurisdiction, but nothing is being done.

The groundwater in Shannon, in La Baie and in Sept-Îles has been polluted. That is also under federal jurisdiction, but it will have to wait. The federal government likes to order studies, but it does not implement the recommendations. It says the problems have been taken care of because it has decided to distribute bottled water, and we should just forget about groundwater.

One of the federal government's responsibilities is to give back the money to the provinces for education, for health and for municipalities. We must stop having to beg on our knees, having to distribute flags to receive a part of the money that is rightfully ours.

I say to Quebecers that, with respect to the $33 billion in taxes that we pay to the federal government, I hope this problem will be solved as quickly as possible. In the meantime, out of this $33 billion federal surplus, some money must be given back to us.

I think that today's debate, which is aimed at getting together the 10 provincial premiers and the federal Prime Minister to discuss tax points once again, is extremely important.

As for justice and honesty, an hon. member, who is a knowledgeable economist, said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois' discussion about this motion will diminish the value of the federal government for the provinces. If the importance of the federal government is diminished, it is not because of a motion such as this one, it is because of the government's behaviour. If Quebecers find more and more that Quebec has less and less space and that its future is increasingly doomed here in Ottawa, it is not because of the discussion that we are proposing today. Rather, it is because of the way the federal government has worked and continues to work.

Let us not forget that when we began talking about sovereignty for Quebec, about 20% of Quebecers were considering that option. We never lost any ground. At the last referendum, 49.4% of Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty. Had it not been for the money spent in violation of Quebec's laws to bring people to Montreal to tell us how much they loved us, support for sovereignty would have exceeded 50%.

Quebec never wavered in its desire to stop begging, as we are doing, for the money that is owed to us. Quebec knows that someday, and that day is closer than some might think, we will exceed 50% and we will settle our issues among ourselves, because this is how it should be done in the future.

It is not the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois today that makes me say this. It is a logical conclusion, it is the way to go for a people that will then fulfil its dream.

In the meantime, it would in the best interests of the federal government to discuss today's motion, to call a federal-provincial first ministers' conference and to look at the possibility of reapportioning tax points.

It is not only the nasty PQ and BQ members who are asking that, but also the leader of the opposition in Quebec. All the Quebec governments, regardless of their allegiance, have always asked to recover these tax points so as to not be forced to beg and kowtow to get money for health, education, municipalities and everything that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what blackmail. It is really something to hear that.

I think the Bloc Quebecois is the one involved in petty politics. I have sat in this House for a long time. I recall the time we had large deficits. While we had them the Bloc members, the sovereignists, said “We have to leave this country because it is not working. You can see it is not working”.

Today we have surpluses. Things are very different. The surplus belongs to them. What blackmail. We should not repay our debt, we should send all the money to Quebec.

I am sorry, but I have always thought that when we repaid our debt we would avoid a lot of interest over the long term. We will have a lot more manoeuvring room than what we had before if we can pay the debt. Let us not forget there are tax points and cash transfers. We are maintaining a balance.

The tax points do not have the same value in each province. A balance must be struck. It is also important to be able to defend the things Canadians hold dear, such as the Canada Health Act.

We will continue to work with the provinces, despite the Bloc Quebecois' blackmail. It is always the same thing. When it is a matter of tax points, it is very important. However, when it suddenly is a matter of transfers to the provinces, they forget the tax points. Cash is the only subject of discussion. They say, “we have enough”. They play little games. It is not playing these little games.

If we sit down together and work, we can do extraordinary things. We did it when we balanced the budgets. We have done this with all Canadians, not just some of them. This is very important for me.

I want to know why they absolutely do not want the government to pay the debt. Do they think we will get ahead of ourselves? I think they are here for one thing alone, and that is to break up this country. It is not perfect, but it works pretty well.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member must know a lot about blackmail, because the federal government she is a member of is certainly very apt in this area. It is blackmailing the people of Quebec with the way it is allocating the money and the conditions it sets.

Where the debt is concerned, nobody said that we should not pay it off. We said that we need to seek some balance. We maintain that the $33 billion the government took from the EI account should not be used to pay off the debt. That money was paid by the workers, by only one segment of society, and not by society at large.

We argue that the money the government is taking from the poor should not all be spent to pay off the debt, because the debt was not incurred by the poorest of the poor. We need some balance.

The tax points we are asking for are only what the government has taken away from the provinces. We only get 14 cents per dollar for health when a few years back we were getting 50 cents per dollar. With less and less money, provinces have to find a way to maintain the health system, while the federal government uses the money to pay off the debt. It is unfair. We want balance. The debt has to be paid off, but let us not forget that there is only one taxpayer.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that is a speech I have been hearing ever since I was elected in 1981 to the Quebec national assembly, of which my hon. colleague was also a member.

It is as if the same record were played over and over. All the faults in the world lie with the federal government: it is monopolistic, it grabs all the tax points, it keeps all the money in Ottawa, it sends nothing to the provinces et cetera. I have heard that so many times that a time comes when it feels like backsliding. It goes on and on.

I want to ask the member a question. The federal government is grabbing, it is centralizing, it keeps all the money here and it gives no power to the provinces. What strikes me, as a Quebec citizen, is that the current Quebec government, which is responsible for municipalities, has passed the tax bill on to municipalities a few years ago, without any consultation. It has fobbed that off to municipalities which had to cope with it. There were signs in every municipality saying: “We do not want to take on your debts”. Then it passed the debt on to the municipalities.

Today, that same government is merging municipalities without any consultation. It has imposed legislation across the board. Today, in hospitals under its control, in all the hospital centres, the legislation has been changed so that members of the boards of trustees will no longer be elected because they say that people do not bother to vote.

The government of Quebec will be appointing the board members. This is the irony of it all. For example, the members of the board of the Jewish hospital will be appointed by Quebec.

This is what provincial decentralization is all about. It is the model—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I understand there is a debate, but I would hope that when one member is speaking, the others will listen. Their turn will come. When two or three hon. members are talking at the same time, it is very hard for me to hear and even harder to understand.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking my colleague, for whom I have much respect—we were together in the national assembly—if that was the model he wanted, the most centralized model of all.

We are talking about federal centralization here, about the most decentralized state in the world, including Switzerland. Is it the Quebec model that we want, a model that centralizes municipalities, that centralizes hospital boards since it will now appoint its members? Before long, everything will be centralized in Quebec and everything will be conducted by the government of Quebec.

I prefer this federal model where everything is decentralized and where we can at least discuss the issue and hon. members can have their say—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Champlain has the floor.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis brings back good memories. Indeed, we had this type of debate in the national assembly.

If he thinks that I have not changed my tune, I will tell him that federalism has not changed either. The problems are still the same. I was talking about how the idea of sovereignty was gaining ground in Quebec; in 1970, we were at 20%.

When the member was in the national assembly with me, there was a referendum and we got about 39%. In the last referendum, we almost won. Why? Because federalism has not evolved.

I remember that a great prime minister supposedly once said, “We are putting our head on the block to announce that changes will be made to the federal system if you vote no”. We saw the kind of changes we got. It was a step back for Quebec. Do not worry, there is progress toward Quebec sovereignty.

With regard to the Quebec government, personally I am proud of what it can do, considering the fact that the federal government has constantly reduced the funding Quebec needed for hospitals, municipalities, health care and education.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

Each time there is a debate with the Bloc Quebecois, I find myself in a difficult position. I certainly like the spirit and the passion of Bloc Quebecois members, but I have great difficulty accepting their ideas. I am a partisan of centralization and government intervention.

On this issue today I could not be further away from where the Bloc Quebecois stands. I come from a city, downtown Toronto, that every year sends $38 billion to the treasury of Canada. There is not a day that passes when I do not have municipal councillors and provincial members of parliament phoning me, sending letters or calling my office to say they are not getting their fair share in Toronto. They say Ontario is not getting its fair share from the national government. Just the greater Toronto area alone last year received $38 billion. This is a tremendous sum of money.

I say to my friends in the Bloc that I came to this place because I believe that this Chamber is to take all the money that comes from the communities that are doing well, from Toronto, Vancouver or Alberta, and distribute that money in a fair and equal manner. We are here to do that so that we can build a nation.

I believe that it is incumbent upon all of us in the Chamber to be like the Speaker was at one time, a referee. We are the referees of that tremendous sum of money that comes to us. We are here to make sure that if there are special circumstances, and I do not care which province it is, where there are difficulties, when remote regions need extra support, whether it is for infrastructure or for certain unforeseen situations, we are here to use the treasury of Canada to treat every region of the country in a fair way.

For me, the notion of further decentralizing the Chamber is just out of the question. In fact I would say with respect to many of my own colleagues in the executive of the government, that they have gone way too far in decentralizing the national government. I think that at times we have gone further to the right than the previous prime minister.

If there was ever a moment in time when we needed to rethink the fiscal framework of the country and the distribution of funds to the provinces, it is this moment. It should not be evolving more. It should be reclaiming some of that responsibility. It should be bringing it back so that we are in a position to reach out to those people in our communities who are most disadvantaged.

I have to say to the members opposite and to the esteemed finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois that in our province right now we have a provincial premier who is very solid in his position. We have a very difficult position with affordable housing. We cannot get our federal-provincial relationship going in trying to get affordable housing.

All of us in the House announced on March 5 that $500 million was to go to the farmers of the country. As of this moment that money has not been distributed because the federal-provincial agreements have not been worked on and have not been signed.

We as national members of parliament should have a mechanism to use when the provinces are not co-operating with us in the national interest, especially where low income Canadians are not being served. I think we should intervene, we should go direct, in order to solve those problems. It is for that reason that I do not think we should devolve any more dollars or tax points other than what is the basic amount now.

I also want to bring up a very important case for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and its finance critic. The hon. member has a situation right now that exists in his province just outside of Montreal on the Kahnawake reserve. It is the Mohawk Internet technology park. The situation there is that our first nations people are trying desperately to become part of the mainstream economy. They have hired expert advice and are attempting to become part of the main economy of Montreal, Quebec. Their own province is walking away from support.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, June 4 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would move that we see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?