House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Madam Speaker, as part of a comprehensive effort to inform parliamentarians and Canadians on the government's performance, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 90 reports on performance on behalf of departments and agencies.
Judy Sgro LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the annual report on immigration for the year 2004.
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service public report for 2003.
Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings
October 28th, 2004 / 10:05 a.m.
Burlington Ontario
Liberal
Paddy Torsney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation
Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(1).
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the report of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the 110th Assembly of the IPU, held in Mexico City, Mexico, from April 15 to 23, 2004.
I can say, for the new members in the House, that the Canadian group of the interparliamentary union once again has worked very hard at the IPU and continues to make quite a presence for Canada and for all parliamentarians.
I would encourage new members to read the report to see the kind of work on peace and security, on trade issues and on international affairs that affect all our countries but particularly the cooperation internationally.
The IPU is the oldest and largest group of members of Parliament from around the world and each of us in this Chamber and in the other place can join individually as well.
As the president, I can say that I am very pleased that we have such a fine delegation from Canada. I encourage members to participate.
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding the Auditor General of Canada's report on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days of the tabling of the report.
I also have the honour to table the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding a request by the committee that the legal fees of public servants appearing before the committee during its consideration of Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General of Canada's November 2003 report be paid by the government. Notwithstanding the deadline of 150 days stipulated in Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report as soon as possible.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime).
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that is a joint initiative of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP, to reverse the burden of proof.
As you know, currently, if a person is convicted of involvement in organized crime, it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove that this person's assets come from an illegitimate source. Under the bill introduced today the person convicted will have to prove that the assets come from a legal source, otherwise they will be confiscated.
This is an important measure, which will give even more powerful tools to the police and the Crown to fight the social plague of organized crime.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (establishment of the Office of Victims Ombudsman of Canada).
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to table my private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, establishment of the office of victims ombudsman of Canada.
The bill is about a more accountable correctional system and a system that is more sensitive and more responsive to the victims of crime.
By creating an office of ombudsman for victims, the House will send a strong message that our justice system must be more responsive to the hurt, loss and needs of victims. By establishing a formal system of assistance and advocacy for victims, their perspectives will receive proper consideration and attention within our correctional system. This will improve the system as well as enhance accountability to the public.
I invite all members interested in the issue of victims' rights and the improvement of our correctional system to join in a serious and reflective debate on this important issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
Is it agreed?
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
moved:
That the House regrets the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at the First Ministers' Conference on October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance in Canada and that, to this end, the House ask the Standing Committee on Finance to strike a special subcommittee to propose tangible solutions for addressing the fiscal imbalance, and that its report be tabled no later than June 2, 2005.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this motion of the Bloc Québécois concerning the attitude of the Prime Minister at the latest first ministers' conference. The conference was meant to address not only equalization payments but also the other financial pressures, to use the Prime Minister's terminology.
This motion also faults the government on its inertia, given its campaign promises, in coming up with any tangible measures to address the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the governments of Quebec and the Canadian provinces.
It would be worthwhile reading the motion again, so that it will be sufficiently clear for the members on the other side of the House, because we have noticed that they need to hear a credible and well-documented message repeated for several years before finally getting it.
It reads:
That the House regrets the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at the First Ministers' Conference on October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance in Canada and that, to this end, the House ask the Standing Committee on Finance to strike a special subcommittee to propose tangible solutions for addressing the fiscal imbalance, and that its report be tabled no later than June 2, 2005.
In addition to finding the Prime Minister's attitude regrettable at that conference, the motion also expresses the desire of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and likely in other parties as well, for the government to come up with tangible solutions.
We want the government to pay more than just lip service to the existence of the fiscal imbalance, even if the Bloc Québécois has managed to introduce this concept into the throne speech, with some nuances. We want things to be made clear now. We want the government to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance and the House to reach a decision on this question, if the government is incapable of doing so alone, and we want them to get at it. A deadline of June 2005 has been set.
That may seem soon, but in fact we have been working on it for years. We were working on it even before Mr. Séguin began chairing the commission, the Séguin commission, three years ago.
Even before that began, as early as 1997, the Bloc Québécois saw that the system was dysfunctional, such that resources in Ottawa were overabundant in proportion to the federal government's constitutional mandate. The provinces and Quebec in particular, however, did not have enough resources to carry out their fundamental missions, especially in health care and education. We have been talking about it since 1997.
In 1997, the year of the first surplus, we proposed a solution. We proposed that the federal government remove itself from the tax fields it occupied with respect to the Canada social transfer—as it was then called—and return GST revenues to Quebec and the provinces so that they could, alone and independently, carry out mandates such as those of health, education and income support. That was already in the air in 1997.
We are aware, and all these years we have tried to make our colleagues aware of this, too, with varying degrees of success. Still, I think that today we can be confident that some other colleagues have finally understood that we cannot go on this way.
Now the debate is being heard, not only in Quebec and in this House, but all over Canada. The two recent conferences, on health and equalization, which were also supposed to consider financial pressures, have proved beyond a doubt that there is a problem, a disparity in the fiscal resources available to the federal and provincial governments.
During the campaign, when the Prime Minister found himself off balance with the rug slipping out from under his feet, he made a promise to solve the problem of what he calls financial pressures and what some people call the fiscal imbalance. I would remind him that the “some people” are all of Quebec, all the Bloc Québécois members of Parliament, and now all of Canada.
In the Bloc amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne, instead of “financial pressures” we should have said, “what some people call financial pressures and what the vast majority call the fiscal imbalance.” In this case, “some people” would mean the Liberals, the only ones who speak of fiscal pressures on the provinces. Everyone is convinced that there is a fiscal imbalance and that change is needed.
It would not be the first time we have seen this. In 1964 already, at the time of Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Lesage in Quebec, a problem of fiscal disparity existed.
There was already a problem, given the mandates that the Government of Quebec had in education in particular. In 1964, education was the focus of the Quebec City Conference. The existence of a disparity was recognized. It was so evident that, exactly 40 years ago, Mr. Pearson, who was also at the head of a minority government, transferred tax points which, to this day, are used for health, education and income support.
Forty years later, we are facing a similar situation. The current Prime Minister lacks Mr. Pearson's finesse, of course. I think everyone recognizes that. In time, the Prime Minister himself will recognize it as well. The facts have to be recognized.
While promises were made concerning the financial pressures, the Prime Minister said he would be ushering in a new era of cooperation with the provinces. He keeps saying that over and over. What new era is this? The same old one, the one of confrontation. At the first ministers conference in September, he had no choice, he was cornered. One the one hand, his government is a minority government and, on the other hand, the provinces presented a united front to demand more funding for health.
Now, he has gone back to the Liberals' bad habits. We were told that we had to be careful because, for a few years, Ottawa would no longer have a huge surplus, that fiscal prudence was required. That has been going on for seven years. For seven years, the Liberal government has been fooling the public about its financial capacity to meet such basic necessities as education and health. For seven years, it has been telling us that it does not have any financial leeway. Yet, every year, as if by magic, the rabbit is pulled out of the hat, or the cat is out of the bag, depending on how we want to look at it, and there is always a big surplus, which keeps growing year after year.
While he was finance minister, the current Prime Minister made the worst forecasting errors, in the neighbourhood of 500%. A 3% or 4% margin of error might be acceptable, and maybe as much as 10% for a very lousy forecaster but, really, 500% is too much. The Prime Minister and the current finance minister are giving a bad name to the budget forecasters in the Department of Finance. These experts are highly trained professionals. How likely is it that they feel comfortable with the charade of the last seven years? They know perfectly well that the politicians across from us in the House are simply lying to Canadians. In so doing, they are making a mockery of democracy.
I just came out of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance that was attended by the Minister of Finance himself. He talked about prebudget consultations and mentioned the importance of coming up with new ideas and new means of managing public finances and forecasting federal government spending next year. However, on what basis would the public be consulted? That is what we need to ask him. It is imperative to know what we are consulting people about. We need a clearer idea of the amounts involved. We need to be told what the surpluses will be for the next few years. The last thing we need is distorted forecasts that have no basis in reality.
This, however, is what they have been telling us for the last seven years. This is a disservice to democracy. How can we evaluate, for example, the federal government's ability to meet the needs of the people if, to start with, the true picture of public finances is completely distorted? They are talking through their hats when they tell the people that Canada is not as rich as they think it is and that it will not generate great surpluses. They were predicting a surplus of $1.9 billion for the fiscal year ending on March 31. And we now have learned that the surplus is $9.1 billion instead. This year, the government is predicting a surplus of $2 billion or $3 billion. That is the figure we are hearing, since the economic growth anticipated by the governor of the Bank of Canada could be a bit too high. The government is saying that he is being more prudent and it believes the numbers will be different. We are heading straight toward a surplus of between $11 billion and $12 billion.
They should stop having us on. They should stop misleading the people and lying to their face about the true state of public finances. This makes no sense at all.
I noticed today something that is symptomatic. The finance minister appears so rarely before the finance committee that journalists and cameramen usually come to interview him there.
This morning there were none. Not a single journalist. Not a single camera. Do you know why? Because the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular, have lost all credibility. What he says cannot be trusted. Journalists are no longer interested in covering his presentations to the Standing Committee on Finance on economic forecasts. They are no longer credible. He has become a laughing stock.
What exactly do we know about the surplus? It is estimated at between $11 and $12 billion next year. That is what I believe. That is what the Bloc Québécois is forecasting, between $11 and $12 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance asked the Conference Board to review the forecasts it issued a few months ago for the Séguin commission, regarding the federal surplus over the next 11 years and the deficit of the provincial governments over the next few years.
The Conference Board was given an extremely conservative framework. One must be prudent. However prudence becomes a lie when it is overdone. If you cry wolf too often, nobody will believe you eventually. Even with extremely conservative parameters, the Conference Board concluded that over the next 11 years, the federal government will post a $164 billion surplus. We are not talking peanuts. We are talking about a $164 billion surplus. On the other hand, the provinces will post a deficit topping $60 billion and this is a conservative estimate.
I bet the federal surplus will be around $200 billion over the next ten years. The Conference Board used as a starting point the federal government's own forecast for last year, which was around $2 billion. Using as a starting point such an abnormally low forecast, which proved to be off by 500%—the real number being more than four times that—to assess what might happen over the next 11 years, the Conference Board's forecasts will obviously be well below the actual surplus.
That is the picture. That is what makes us say that for the past seven years the public has been duped. The federal government is swimming in surplus, will continue to do so and has far too much money in proportion to its responsibilities, while the government of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces do not have enough stable and predictable funding to provide for the basic needs of the public, which is what we are asking for.
When a government comes into power, in Quebec as in the Canadian provinces, the public expects the government to serve it in those areas under its jurisdiction. Those jurisdictions include health, education, income support, and public services such as road maintenance, and so on. Governments have a mandate. However, if they do not have adequate resources to carry out their mandates, because the federal government denies them the means they should have, is that not dysfunction? Is it normal to have a $9 billion surplus here when most of the provinces, except Alberta, which is swimming in oil, of course—here they are swimming in surpluses, there they are swimming in oil—are suffering from the fiscal imbalance? Is this situation normal? No, it is not.
There are three other consequences to the surplus apart from the fiscal imbalance we have been dealing with for many years and will continue to deal with in the coming years.
First, the needs of the public are not being met.
Second, the federal government is using these surpluses to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In the past four years alone, intrusions have totalled $16 billion. In other words, the federal government has taken money from the taxpayers, accumulated surpluses and used the surpluses to invade jurisdictions that, under the Constitution, belong to the provinces. I am talking about $16 billion just to confuse matters. A ship has one captain, not two. The Prime Minister should know that since he has been in the shipping industry for a long time. He should know that we cannot have two captains running the same ship. That is what the federal government is doing. It is interfering in health and education and is using surpluses to do so.
I can give you examples of intrusion. Federal intrusions amount to $16 billion in the last few years. Incidentally, the Bloc Québécois leader set up a committee on which I had the privilege to sit, along with my colleague from Joliette and Mr. Léonard, a former president of the Quebec treasury board. The committee found out that since 1994-95, and more particularly in the last five years, the federal government has spent more in areas under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and the provinces generally than it did in areas under its own jurisdiction.
In the last five years, this spending totalled a hefty $16 billion.
There are many examples of this: the youth employment strategy, the health transition fund, the community action program for children, the Canada prenatal nutrition program, the Canadian health information system, the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, strengthening communities in the voluntary sector, and the Canadian institutes of health research.
Let us talk about foundations, and especially the Canada foundation for innovation. Each and every time money is put into foundations, the Parliament loses all control. In the areas under Quebec jurisdiction, again, we have the nurses using the research and service evaluations fund. What does the federal government know about that? It manages two hospitals, one for aboriginals and one for veterans, and they are a complete and utter disaster. They have no business telling us how health services should be managed. We also have the supporting community partnerships initiative for the homeless. All these areas are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
This is what happens when you have too much money. You invest in provincial jurisdictions. Conditions are imposed for cost shared programs. This is how you end up in a situation like the one we are in right now. While the provincial governments do not have enough money to meet their essential, basic and fundamental needs, the federal government has too much money.
What else besides these intrusions does a surplus situation produce? It produces waste and corruption. Talking about waste, there has been an unprecedented increase in the federal government's operating expenditures since 1998. This was ongoing while this Prime Minister was Minister of Finance. He was the good manager who pretended to be managing public funds in a prudent and responsible manner. Between 1998 and 2003, there was a 39% increase in the operating expenditures while the inflation rate was about 10% for the same period. Is increasing the operating expenditures three or even four times the inflation rate really a responsible way of managing? Hardly.
Is he a good manager? This is easy. How do you think he could accumulate a surplus? The employment insurance fund surplus and the cuts in the Canada social transfer had no effect on the federal government operating expenditures. They were measures dealing with the services offered to the public and concerned their welfare.
I do not think there is doubt in anyone's mind that there has been corruption. The sponsorship scandal is probably just the tip of the iceberg. This is what happens when there is too much money. When people have access to so much money that they do not know how to spend it, it increases the risk of corruption and even promotes it.
This motion seeks to set the government back on the right track and to get the Standing Committee on Finance working on a solution to the fiscal imbalance problem.
They talk about the two conferences. They say it is wonderful; they solved a good part of the problem. Let me say that after the conference on health and the other that concluded the day before yesterday, Quebec will receive $800 million more this year. Do you know how much the transfer of tax points, such as transfer of the GST to the Government of Quebec, could represent? An extra $2.4 billion. In order to solve the fiscal imbalance problem we were talking about $3.3 billion this year alone for the Government of Quebec. With this $800 million, there is a shortfall of $2.4 billion. They are giving us $800 million and forgetting to mention that they have already taken $2 billion in taxes out of the pockets of Quebeckers, as part of the surplus. Our share of the surplus is $2 billion of the $9 billion. Quebeckers have paid $2 billion too much in taxes to the federal government. Now they are giving back $800 million and we are supposed to applaud.
It is time that this trickery, this clowning around, this foolishness stops. Right now, it is the taxpayers, sick people, students, and people on low incomes who are paying for the government's negligence and lies.
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin with a resolution that is such intellectual conceit and such nonsense. We try to deal in this place with some scope of reasonableness. It is very difficult when we get a phrasing of a resolution in such an inflammatory fashion and in such a manner that leads to an answer that is ridiculous.
In the fiscal year 2003-04 the federal government raised about $186 billion in revenues. The provinces raised about $170 billion in revenues. That includes the tax points which are roughly in the order of $16 billion. In addition to the tax points, the federal government transferred cash to the provinces of about $37 billion. When we add that to the provincial revenues and subtract it from the federal revenues, the federal government has about $148 billion in revenues and the provincial governments have $207 billion in revenues.
As the House knows, in generations past the governments have run up accumulated deficits until the minister of finance, now the Prime Minister, finally got that under control and actually reduced the debt from a run up of $562 billion down to now $501 billion.
It still leaves us paying 19¢ out of every dollar that the federal government generates toward the debt. That debt servicing cost costs the federal government something in the order of about $35 billion this year. We are down to $148 billion. We then take away the $35 billion to service the debt and the federal government has about $113 billion left over for its other programs.
Included in the other programs are transfers to persons, such as elderly persons and to people who are unemployed, which amounts to another $29 billion. Therefore the federal government's revenues that are available for other programs actually dip below $100 billion.
The provinces have well over $200 billion in revenues available, not only from their own sources where they can tax all of their own sources, but in addition to the transfers from the federal government. Meanwhile, they only pay 10¢ out of every dollar toward their debt of about $281 billion.
If there is in fact a fiscal imbalance, it is exactly the opposite of what the member is speaking about here. I put it to him that all of the debt is with the federal government and all of the revenues are with the provinces.
Will the member at least acknowledge that is in fact the fiscal situation between the federal government and the provincial governments, and that those are accurate numbers?
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I have noticed something. The former Minister of Finance did not know how to count. Now that he is Prime Minister, he still does not know how to count. The current Minister of Finance does not know how to count either. There was another one, Mr. Manley, who did not know how to count either. The same goes for the parliamentary secretary.
Are we to assume that no one in this government knows how to count? There is a limit. They are supposed to represent the public, but most members of the public know how to count. I cannot believe that this would be any different for the Liberals.
With respect to everything my hon. colleague just listed as responsibilities, such as federal government spending, there is something I think he did not realize and I am going to point it out to him.
On March 31, after it had paid everything, that is all expenditures relating to its responsibilities under the Constitution, to its intrusions in provincial jurisdictions, to its own little business, such as flooding the country with Canadian flags, and after reducing the debt, the federal government ended up with a $9.1 billion surplus. Is this clear enough? A surplus is what is left after everything has been paid. It is a simple principle. It does not take an accountant to understand that. It is the same thing every year.
Will the government stop harping on about those darn tax points? These points were allocated in 1964, during the Quebec conference, and, to a lesser extent, in 1971. They were essentially created in 1964. Now, the Liberals would have us believe that the 1964 redefinition of tax fields has become an expenditure for the current federal government. That is not true. This is something that was given, something that was allocated.
If a person sells his house and is immediately paid the full amount, it is no longer that person's house. If the house is sold, it belongs to the buyer. In 1964, tax points were allocated; these points no longer belong to the federal government.
If there is something to remember from the 1964 conference, it is that we should hold a similar conference again, because the situation has become plain intolerable.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I hear the member for Outremont. He too should learn how to count, because I think he has problems in that area. Some might say he has other problems too, and I agree.
We should repeat the 1964 exercise. We have reached that point, because revenues are disproportionate and it is indecent for the federal government to keep telling us, year in and year out, with a sheepish grin, that it has surpluses, that it was wrong in its estimates, because the economy...
Madam Speaker, do you know what this is? This is a calculator that costs about $50. With it, we can calculate surpluses within a 3% margin of error.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
The calculator costs $10; this is even worse. If necessary, we will provide each one of them with such a calculator, so they can learn to calculate. With a simple calculator like this one, we can estimate surpluses within a 3% margin of error, one year in advance.
That is why I was saying just now that the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Outremont are all sullying the reputation of the Finance economists. They are not comfortable with the totally abnormal forecasts we have been presented with over the past seven years. I am sure of that. I know some of them personally, from university days. They can count as well as I can. Their marks were as good as mine. If I and my little team from the Bloc Québécois can predict a surplus within a 3% margin of error, I cannot believe that they cannot do likewise at Finance. This is an attack on their reputation.
Now, for the debt. The member's question was a pretty longwinded one, and my answer will be as well. Good managers can understand this. If there are two debts, and a single taxpayer, one starts by paying down the debt that is costing the most. But here the opposite is being done.
They are quickly paying down the one that costs the least to carry—the federal government's debt, because it has a more favourable interest rate—while letting the provincial debts, including the debt of Quebec, build up at a less advantageous rate. That debt is being allowed to grow.
Where is the proper management in this? There is still just the one taxpayer, but part of that taxpayer's money is being wasted by paying down less costly debts and letting the more costly ones mount up.
So, to continue with my longwinded answer, the third part is this. The Minister of Finance himself asked the Conference Board to review the surplus for future years. Their very conservative estimate suggests that the total of the federal surpluses for the next 11 years would be $164 billion. This was not at my request, but the finance minister's.
The member ought perhaps to look into the actions of his Minister of Finance, because he appears not to know what actions were taken that yielded analyses as off as this one is.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to commend the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his excellent speech. He reminded the House of a number of facts and exposed some of the myths being propagated by the federal Liberals. I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on a few of these myths.
For instance, the federal Liberals are spreading the rumour that Quebec is the province benefiting the most from equalization. In absolute terms, it is true. However, we are getting $500 less per capita than the Atlantic provinces.
Most of the provinces receive 25% of their income from federal transfers, compared to 23% for Quebec.
In this debate on fiscal imbalance, we are talking of course about equalization and federal transfers, but should we not also be talking about the federal structural spending, which clearly benefits Ontario, if only in terms of the money spent on public servants? We are very much aware of the deficit in terms of federal public servants from Quebec as compared with those from Ontario. Could the hon. member elaborate on this?
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, if the federal government was giving us our fair share of federal structural spending, research and development, civil servants and procurement, at 24%—since more often than not it is under 24%—, there would be 40,000 new jobs in Quebec. So, between equalization and federal structural spending, we would opt for
However, as my hon. colleague pointed out, Ontario gets 57% of all federal procurement contracts, compared with 18% or 19% for Quebec. By getting its fair share in all those areas, Quebec would get 40,000 new jobs. We would by far prefer that option.
Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be able to participate in today's opposition day debate. Indeed, that provides us with the opportunity to evaluate the measures taken by this government since its recent election. In the few months since the election, this government has delivered the goods in terms of major commitments.
As we know, the main theme of the election was health care. We knows this is the major concern of Canadians. Our Prime Minister, in collaboration with provincial premiers, succeeded in negotiating a historic agreement. It was a historic agreement because of its scope and because of its flexibility. The Prime Minister had promised, during the electoral campaign, to deliver additional amounts in order to reduce waiting lists and to enable provinces to inject more money in health care operating costs.
It's such a pleasure to rise today and to say: mission accomplished! Over the next few years, the provinces will receive an additional $41.3 billion. That's a lot of money! It has enabled all the provinces to sign the accord. This is an important aspect, because a lot of agreements were concluded in the past, and somebody always hesitated or left early. In this case, all the provinces, including the Quebec, signed an accord and came out of there with an agreement where everybody was a winner.
However, the real winners of this agreement on health care are the weakest members of our society, those affected by disease and who, today, can hope to receive quality health care, and in a timely fashion. Indeed, we know that in the area of health care, it is not only about getting access eventually. Often, it is about receiving care as quickly as possible. Thus, the problem posed by the disease is reduced and, often, prevention is also helpful.
The provinces now have enough money and predictability to be able to set up an effective and well-funded health care system.
Jean Lapierre Liberal Outremont, QC
I am saying it with a straight face, because the Quebec minister of health, a very respected specialist, was quite happy: he applauded this agreement. Indeed, he applauded this agreement because he will now have leeway to modernize some facilities, to purchase new equipment and to hire the required staff. In this respect, I am surprised not to have heard the Bloc Québécois members congratulate the government, applaud the government for having succeeded in signing this historic agreement. Just consider how sensitive this government is to the needs of the provinces!
A few weeks later, upon request from the provinces, we had a meeting on equalization with a set agreement. When the conference on health took place, the provinces had reached a consensus. They had requested $10.9 billion in equalization. The Prime Minister, who is mindful of the requests of the provinces, said: “Excellent, the matter has been settled!” The provinces said: “Would it be possible to hold a meeting, since we have to discuss the distribution of this money. So, could we meet a little later?” Once again, the Prime Minister, who is sensitive and mindful, said: “Excellent, we will have a meeting in October.”
That meeting happened. The $10.9 billion were on the table. The Prime Minister had held his promise once again. Of course, the provinces thought that, perhaps, if they had another meeting, they could try to receive a little more. That is human nature. We know that between the health accord and the equalization deal, it was announced that we had a major surplus, but not a surplus to allow us to waste money. No. This is a surplus that we used responsibly to reduce the debt. We did not decide to spend that money thinking that we had a surplus and that the economy was going very well. No, not at all. It is when things go well that we must pay off our debts, not when things go bad.
Because of our economic successes, the Canadian economy finally led to more revenues for the Canadian government, which we couple with good management. Every day, when I hear that we have a surplus, I am very pleased, because I tell myself that this government manages things well and is not a big spender. We know what it means for the taxpayer, on Thursdays, to have money taken from his pay. We tell ourselves that, when the economy is good, for the future of our children and grandchildren, let us try to reduce the debt. Let us give them a decent legacy.
That is exactly what happened. An amount of $9.1 billion was used to reduce the debt. However, we certainly cannot say mission accomplished. When we are being asked to spend to our heart content, we must keep in mind that we still owe $500 billion. This is a lot of money. We have no right to leave this as a legacy to our children and grandchildren. At this time, because interest rates are low, we can create an optical illusion, but we do not know what awaits us or what the future has in store for us. We have been responsible. We have used that amount to reduce the debt.
There is this equalization agreement. Once again, our colleagues will no doubt say that it is not enough. Still, an additional $33 billion will go to the provinces over the next ten years. That is not peanuts. When we think about it, and I know that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are not crazy about it, Quebec will receive $477 million more in equalization payments this year. This means that Ottawa must have done its homework in recognizing the financial pressures. And that is to say nothing of the additional $1.121 billion that will be paid next year. That too helps reduce a province's financial pressures.
The Government of Quebec, beginning with Minister Séguin, asked for a degree of stability, to prevent large fluctuations in equalization. Mission accomplished on that count as well. We have delivered; in the future, we will guarantee a floor level, as well as 3.5% in growth. How can an income be any more stable and secure? The Prime Minister has responded very responsibly to this legitimate demand of the provinces, which were looking for greater predictability. We recognized the flaw, and that is why we renewed the system to make it more reliable and more predictable.
On a percentage basis, Quebec is coming out of this conference with 43% of the budget. That is not a small amount. Naturally, we all hope—at least I do, as a Quebecker—that the day will come when Quebec will no longer need to rely on equalization because its economy will have reached a level that will allow us to do without it. I hope so.That is what we are working on. That is why we are developing an aerospace policy to ensure that a vital sector of our economy does even better.
For the time being, the equalization program is extremely generous. We can never expect the moon, but one thing is sure: the amounts involved are substantial, and that is nothing compared to what is coming.
We have delivered on health, and met our equalization commitments. Now, watch how we do on our agreement with the municipalities and provinces. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that we would refund up to 5¢ per litre of gasoline over a five year period.
It will be the greatest infrastructure program Canada has ever had. Year after year, up to $2 billion will be invested to help the municipalities. Add to that the GST transfer.
Look at the spirit in which our colleagues—among others, my hon. colleague responsible for infrastructure—met with the provincial representatives to ensure the necessary flexibility under the Constitution, acknowledging of course that the municipalities are provincial responsibilities. Once again, we will be able to deliver the goods in harmony and agreement. This promise, made before the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, will be kept.
We are talking about reducing the financial pressure on the Government of Quebec. I know they are waiting impatiently for this agreement to be signed. We hope this will happen in the coming months so we may, once again, deliver substantial funding in the finance minister's next budget.
Mayors and municipal councils across the country can say that the Prime Minister, once again, is going to keep his word. Health, equalization and cities are the three formal promises and for which it will be “mission accomplished” in a few months.
There is another promise that will further reduce the financial pressure on the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec has an exemplary child care program, which is very expensive, much more expensive than the government had anticipated at the time. One thing is certain, this program should serve as a model to benefit children throughout the country.
We made a promise to give up to $5 billion over five years for this program. The Government of Quebec has already done its homework. This will translate into a financial transfer, which, again, will reduce financial pressure.
Every program, every agreement that is signed, negotiated and delivered is good news for Quebec's finance minister. Every agreement will make finances less tight. We cannot be responsible for Quebec's finances—the minister has his constitutional responsibilities—but we can make an effort. We made a promise and we are going to keep it. However, we also have needs at our level of jurisdiction.
Some think that we can simply spend our time sending money, but there have to be legitimate reasons. For instance, in our areas of jurisdiction, I can tell you that, everyday, I resist pressures in the field of transportation. I have colleagues here who would like me to help small airports. Others call for improvements to the rail transport system. Others have needs in the area of ports. Everyday, we must be strictly disciplined. I have colleagues who would like us to spend for all kinds of studies in the area of transportation. It happens every day. I have to restrain myself, because we are fiscally responsible.
When we look at it, my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, receives requests every day for his area of responsibility. My colleague in Canadian Heritage also receives daily requests, particularly for special events. All big events would like to find financial support. We resist.