Debates of March 18th, 2002

Supply

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult to understand my colleague opposite. At one point, he told us that even three month forecasts were difficult to make and lacked credibility. Especially after the events of September 11, the world has clearly become more uncertain.

First, he tells us that three month forecasts are difficult to make and now he wants us to accept the Séguin report with its 20 year projections. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

The speech made by the parliamentary secretary and the stand he is taking remind me of the guy on the highway—

[An hon. member]

He is not on highway 30.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

No, he is not on highway 30. He is driving along and sees a lot of cars coming toward him. He hears a warning on the radio that people should be careful because there is a car going the wrong way. He thinks, “That is not true; there is more than one car going the wrong way”.

The government is the only one that is saying that there is no fiscal imbalance. It is the only one. All premiers agree that there is a fiscal imbalance.

I would like to put today's debate into context and look at it from a broader perspective. What we are discussing today is an extremely important issue that goes to the heart of the debate on the future of Quebec.

There are three things that have a stranglehold on Quebec right now, and they are all related to the federal government's increasing appetite for a greater centralization of powers.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

It is a case of bulimia.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Let us take the three elements that made my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. say that the federal government has bulimia, when it comes to power and centralization.

The first is globalization. My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will agree with the following premise: more and more things that affect our daily lives today are decided around international tables. This is what is called the globalization phenomenon. More and more, governments are giving away to supranational organizations, such as the WTO, the power to make decisions affecting the lives of the citizens of their countries.

However, in this phenomenon, the government that is negotiating for Canadians and for Quebecers at the international level is the Ottawa government, and it does so in all areas. Even in provincial jurisdictions, it is the federal government that negotiates at the international level.

The federal government is using its negotiating power at the international level to reach agreements in provincial jurisdictions. Then, it imposes them on the provinces, under the pretext that, if the provinces do not apply the negotiated agreements, they will be penalized, for example, by a WTO or a NAFTA panel.

Thus, the federal government is using its role of negotiator at the international level to intrude into provincial jurisdictions. This is the first major element.

The second major element is the social union agreement, which, as we know, was signed on February 4, 1999, by all the Canadian premiers, except of course the premier of Quebec. This agreement formally recognized for the first time the federal spending power, which implies the federal government's power to spend in provincial jurisdictions.

It was the first time in the history of the federation that the provinces, again with the exception of Quebec, granted such a power to the federal government. With this agreement, Ottawa obtained legal justification to pursue its centralizing efforts. That is the second element.

The third element is the fiscal imbalance. As we will see, everything is interrelated. Through this fiscal imbalance, which the federal government wanted, Ottawa has the financial means to centralize.

Through these three elements, namely its role as negotiator on the international scene, the social union agreement and its determination to maintain the fiscal imbalance—in fact it even denies that there is an imbalance—Ottawa is increasingly centralizing the Canadian federation.

As regards the fiscal imbalance, the Séguin commission—I repeat it, because people tend to forget it, the Séguin commission is a non-partisan commission chaired by a former Quebec Liberal minister—said “By definition, the Canada social transfer thus represents an infringement on provincial jurisdictions, which is in itself a cause of fiscal imbalance”.

A third party was asked to look at the situation and it came to the conclusion that there is indeed a major fiscal imbalance. There is no need to look very far. Let us take the figures provided by the federal government itself, which is not a separatist party.

In 2000-01, surpluses totalled $17.1 billion. It is unfortunate that the secretary of state does not agree, but, for 2001-02, surpluses will reach about $9.5 billion. This will come out in a few days, in spite of the September 11 events.

A few moments ago, the secretary of state said that there could be another September 11 that would completely change the situation. But the fact remains that, by the end of this month, in spite of the tragic events of September 11, the federal government will have surpluses of $9.5 billion. For 2002-03, these surpluses will total $12.6 billion.

There is a very broad consensus in Quebec among the three political parties at the national assembly, that is the Parti Québécois, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Action démocratique du Québec, and also among the provinces. The other provincial premiers are not separatists. They unanimously recognize this fiscal imbalance. They have brought up that problem seven times since 1997. This is no small feat.

I will quote one of the conclusions of their December 2000 conference.

There is a growing imbalance between the cost and tax pressures felt by provinces and territories and those felt by the federal government.

This is not a separatist refrain. The fiscal imbalance exists. Here is what this situation tells us. When the fiscal imbalance problem is set in its proper perspective, we can see that the federal steam roller is going full blast. It is running full steam ahead.

Since the last referendum, in 1995, the federal government has an avowed intent to bulldoze its opponents, to grab more and more powers, to act in such a way that the Canadian federal state will become protofederal. It is based on the three-pronged approach of globalization, social union and fiscal imbalance.

The Bloc Quebecois is dedicated to fight for Quebec. Among other things, it will inevitably go strongly after the government to ensure it puts an end to this fiscal imbalance problem. This supply day where the Bloc is representing the views not only of the three political parties in the national assembly but also of all the provincial premiers is but a step toward a fight which is more and more important, that is fighting against the federal government's insatiable hunger for centralizing powers.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier for his unique contribution to this debate. Naturally, he spoke about globalization and the pressure it is putting on the federal government which, in turn, is increasing its efforts to centralize, to the detriment of the provinces.

I know, as he is the critic for intergovernmental affairs, that he is well informed on the subject, so I would like him to talk some more about the abusive use of the federal spending power. This has grown progressively over the years, to such an extent that, nowadays, it is nowhere near what it was at the beginning of confederation. That spending power is now excessive. This fact is recognized by every consensus the member just referred to. I would like him to expand on the issue of the federal government's abusive recourse to its spending power.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for raising this issue, which really bothers him, I know.

When, in political theory, we look at what a federation is made up of, we find that one of its elements is the distribution of powers. The distribution of powers is at the heart of what a federal system is all about.

The existence of a spending power intrinsically contradicts the very nature of a federal system. In other words, to allow the central government to intervene in provincial fields of jurisdiction, with a spending power or otherwise, goes against what a federal system really is.

With this spending power that the federal government has grabbed, a power that leads to centralization, as I have already said on numerous occasions, we can see that the Canadian federal system is less and less a federation, and more and more a unitary state. This use, by the federal government, of its spending power in fields of jurisdiction that are not its own--in other words, it goes against the distribution of powers at the heart of a federal system--is a denail of the true nature of Canada's political system.

Starting from there, Quebecers and Canadians will have to decide whether they want to live in a country that is increasingly centralizing and centralized or whether they want to live in another system where the state of Quebec could live in accordance with its own priorities and objectives.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the original assumption of the Séguin Commission was wrong. It was told that there was a fiscal imbalance. The commission was never asked to check if there was a fiscal imbalance but was told about one. Mr. Séguin and his people were asked to prove and to come to the conclusion that there actually was a fiscal imbalance.

Quebec's Premier Landry showed his hand last week when he stated that the report will be used as a reference document to promote Quebec's sovereignty.

This reminds me of the 1995 referendum strategy where Premier Parizeau asked Mr. LeHir to report, on almost all fields, to show that Quebec could become sovereign and did not need the rest of Canada to look after its business. This is precisely along the same lines, its the same strategy.

I put this question to the member. Is there a fiscal imbalance in paying back $100 billion in taxes to all Canadians, including Quebecers? Is a $21 billion agreement on health care interference in provincial jurisdiction?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

They invested it in Toronto.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

What about leaving $800 million in a bank account in Toronto? Is it also interfering in provincial jurisdictions?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Well, that is exactly what it is. Who decided to grant early retirement to 1,100 Quebec doctors who will each receive $300,000?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

And to 5,000 nurses.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, and to 5,000 nurses. Is that fiscal imbalance? Is paying back a $500 billion debt to Canada a way to fight the deficit?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I have a feeling that some are dipping a bit prematurely into Easter chocolate. Let us take it upon ourselves to react a bit more calmly and proceed with our work as usual.

When a member has the floor other members must listen. Thus, when it is another member's turn to be recognized he is also treated politely and respectfully. I hope that with your cooperation things will soon be back to normal.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard it and you also heard very distinctly the member say “You are lying through your teeth”. We all know that the word “to lie” is unparliamentary. I would like you to ask the member to retract himself before I answer his question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me point out that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier used specific words. I am now asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry to withdraw his remarks.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them, but it will not stop me from thinking them nonetheless.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

What nonsense. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, you know me, and I have always been respectful of the House, and I find it very difficult to stoop that low.

I have seldom seen a member, a parliamentary secretary to boot, make all kinds promises and talk about building bridges during the election, and then come out accusing us of spreading inaccuracies. It is so low, so childish and nonsensical that I will make just this remark: instead of condemning people on the basis of their political opinions and saying that, because somebody is a sovereignist, his opinion does not make sense, he should remember that the Ottawa based conference board, which does not even have a French name and is not a separatist outfit by any means, agrees with our conclusions.

Let him draw his own conclusions and think for himself instead of being told by his ministers what he should think.

Business of the House

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the flow of the chaos that was taking place in the last few minutes on this debate, but there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the vote on Motion No. P-20, under the name of the member for New Brunswick Southwest, that was deferred until the end of government business today be further deferred until Wednesday, March 20 at 3 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough have consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?