Yvan Loubier

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

British Columbia does not get any.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Ontario does not get any.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is doing the right thing by leaving to go to work. I would advise him not to write a book, but rather to work for the unemployed he has left on their own for the past two years. It will be more advantageous for everyone.

I submit that, taking a province such as Quebec with the second largest population in Canada and multiplying the number of people by $536 gives an impressive total. The principle of equalization payments, however, is to calculate per person. I have done a few quick calculations, and if Newfoundland had Quebec's population, with its level of equalization payment per capita, it would not get the $3.9 billion Quebec does, but rather $12.736 billion. In other words, a total of four times as much in equalization payments as Quebec, if Newfoundland had the same population as Quebec.

It can be seen that it makes no sense to say that Quebec gets $3.9 billion, or 47% of the equalization payments. No, no. Equalization is calculated on a per capita basis, not a lump sum. If Newfoundland had as large a population as Quebec, it would get three times as much in total equalization payments.

Now a little trip to the west, the land of Reform. Let us look at Manitoba.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Do you know why they are talking and laughing across the way? Because they do not want us to dispel a myth arising from remarks that are sometimes so tendentious as to be deceitful. That is why they are raising their voices. They do not wish to hear the truth.

As I was saying, equalization payments are established per capita for each of the provinces, which is understandable.

Initially, in 1957, they said that each Canadian, from coast to coast, should enjoy consistent public services without crippling cost to the provincial governments. So equalization payments were used for this purpose and calculated on a per capita basis.

Seven provinces currently receive equalization payments, and Quebec is not the one receiving the most. Payment on a per capita basis is the basis of the program. This year, Quebec received $536 per capita.

Newfoundland received $1,743 per capita, or three times what Quebec received. Let us also look at New Brunswick. And in terms of figures, the Minister of Human Resources Development is not so qualified, because he cannot differentiate between 38% coverage and 62% coverage. He mixes up the figures. His figures are also a little tendentious.

So, New Brunswick received $1,322 per capita, again nearly three times what Quebec receives.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell my colleagues across the way that they should listen carefully in order to avoid perpetuating a myth that is complete nonsense?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

If I were the Minister of Human Resources Development, instead of staying here, I would go back to the drawing board and overhaul the employment insurance system, which presently covers less than 40 per cent of the population. It would be better for everybody if the minister did that instead of commenting on what I have to say about equalization.

Concerning equalization in Quebec, there is a myth that has been circulating for many years, ever since equalization payments started, to the effect that Quebec is the great beneficiary of equalization. I pointed out earlier that when we take into account the 30 fiscal parameters of equalization—

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to an important bill concerning equalization payments in Canada.

First off, I wish to comment on what the Leader of the Reform Party said earlier about the equalization program. The Leader of the Opposion said that it was complex, incomprehensible and riddled with political interventions. With all due respect, I would differ.

If there is one program right now that is clear, technical and technically comprehensible when one takes the trouble to look more closely, that is fair to all Canadian provinces, that is based on verifiable, scientific facts and not on political decisions, that is the very foundation of what has been described as the compassion of this regime from its very inception, it is the equalization payment program.

For the benefit of all those listening, I would like to give a brief explanation of the origins of equalization payments, what they are, how they are calculated, and how they benefit the public.

Equalization payments are not a recent phenomenon. They first began in 1957. Why do we have them? They are the result of the post-World War II Rowell-Sirois report, a huge royal commission of inquiry into the workings of the Canadian federation which, after months of discussions, briefs and analyses, recommended certain directions that the federation should take to ensure a fairer future for all Canadians.

One of the recommendations was equalization payments, a program to ensure that provinces across the country, even those with differing tax capacities, could all provide reasonably comparable levels of public service.

For a self-respecting federalist, and even for a sovereignist looking at the system from the outside, equalization payments are the foundation of fiscal federalism. They make it possible to reduce—but not eliminate—the disparities from coast to coast, as the members opposite would say.

How are payments arrived at? Using a very specific formula, an analysis is made of the tax revenues that each province and each local government is capable of raising from their populations in order to provide public services that are comparable from one province to another without levying additional taxes that would bleed taxpayers dry.

First, the sources of revenue for each of the provinces and local governments are identified. When the program was first introduced in 1957, three sources of revenue were identified for each province. Now there are 30. These include property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and so forth, for a total of 30 categories. There is nothing political about it. It is simply a list of 30 ways in which each of the provinces generates provincial and local fiscal revenue. A list is compiled for each province.

Then, one takes five provinces considered representative and puts them through the same process. For each of the five representative provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec in particular, a standard is developed against which every other province will be assessed in terms of its capacity to levy taxes on its territory.

These 30 fiscal parameters for each province, the standard developed for the five representative provinces, will serve as the basis for calculating the equalization payments each one is entitled to, unless they are not eligible because they exceed the standard set for the five Canadian provinces regarding the capacity to levy taxes.

After all this has been done, the federal government agrees with the provinces that, for the next five years, equalization payments will be calculated per capita—and this is a very important detail—so that each province can provide public services in a fair manner, at approximately the same level, taking into account its particular fiscal capacity and economic strength.

There is nothing political about this, nothing off the wall, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. If there is a program that is still appreciated, regardless of how much is paid to each province, it is this one. We may come back to this later. There are individuals who are getting a lot of political mileage out of this. But regardless of the amounts paid, equalization per se is a very good principle. It is also a principle that would deserve further and more serious consideration, and more social understanding as well, especially on the part of a staunch federalist.

There is nothing complicated in equalization. Finance Canada has put out a booklet, about 30 pages long, that outlines the situation very well. For those with more inquisitive minds, who put more energy into understanding what is going on in this country, there is, of course, 450 pages of annexes. Hard work can be done on every aspect of the fiscal parameters.

As I said, this is a matter of personal taste and preference. My preference would be the fiscal system. It is a system that has captivated me for many years.

Even though we have concerns about the estimates done for certain of the parameters used to calculate equalization payments per province, we will wait until the bill goes to committee to ask more precise questions, in order to have an even better idea of the results of the last negotiation and of the new equalization system that will apply as of April 1.

In the meantime, allow me to set the record straight and to denounce certain members across the way who are trying to score political points in talking about equalization and Quebec—

[Employment Insurance, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what sort of government are we dealing with?

On the one hand, it is letting billions of dollars leave the country tax free in family trusts, turning a blind eye to tax evasion by shipping lines, and getting ready to give tax breaks to multimillionaires, while, on the other, it is going after unemployed workers and squeezing them dry.

What sort of government are we dealing with?

[Employment Insurance, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unemployed workers are not the only targets.

In his memo, Ron Stewart, director general of control and investigation at Human Resources Development, wrote, and I quote “Other savings can be achieved by increasing the number of fines imposed on companies”.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Now that the minister has exceeded his quotas for jobless workers, will he confirm that his department has issued a directive asking employees to target companies?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

My grandmother also used to tell me the same thing when I used that kind of language.

In other words, when one has the honour of representing Quebeckers, as my colleague does and we do, we have to report the truth. The problem we had during the last 30 years, before the Bloc Quebecois came on the federal scene, is that there was a double legitimacy: there were those in the National Assembly in Quebec City who said one thing, quite often the right thing, and there were the federalist representatives of Quebec in the House of Commons who said the opposite because they had to follow Mr. Trudeau, because there had to be a balance between the east and the west, and so on. There were often contradictions between what was said here in Ottawa and what was said in Quebec City.

For once, one can say that the Bloc Quebecois here is defending the true interests of Quebeckers, interests that are based on a consensus. I challenge the member to say that his position on the millennium scholarships fund reflects the position of Quebeckers. We debated the issue for weeks, there were representations from all the legitimate representatives of Quebec, namely organisations that really count in Quebec, students federations, workers unions and business people. They are all against the millennium scholarships.

The member should stop saying things that are not correct. It is not true that the millennium scholarships fund will help needy students. This fund will actually be useful to an elite because the scholarships will be granted on the basis of merit, not need.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I admit I should not have used that word. Sometimes, one gets wound up.

The words I had in mind were “heck of a problem”, rather than “ helluva problem ”.