Pauline Picard

[Fondation Beaudoin-Desrosiers, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to highlight the work of an exceptional couple from my riding. Over the last 21 years, Michel Desrosiers and France Beaudoin have adopted some ten children with disabilities in need.

These children, aged 2 to 21, come from across Quebec. The Beaudoin-Desrosiers' decided that they wanted to provide a real family life for these children, and they hope to be able to adopt more children. This has become their life's work.

Caring for several children with disabilities requires a considerable amount of money to purchase specialized medical equipment. In 1995, they established the Fondation Beaudoin-Desrosiers, to fulfill the dream of allowing children to live in a family environment.

I invite everyone to support this foundation and to give generously so that it can meet the growing needs of these children.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the message sent back in 1982 was that from now on the federal government can act without Quebec's consent. For example, with the parental leave, instead of giving back to Quebec the taxes collected from its people, the federal government continues to want to impose a single vision, namely its own.

Can the Prime Minister deny that the attitude which prevailed toward Quebec in 1982 when the constitution was unilaterally patriated continues to prevail today as far as finances are concerned, and that this approach consists in keeping the money in Ottawa while imposing Ottawa's views on Quebec?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill on the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores.

Let me say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. However, I would like to draw attention to an issue on which the bill is silent, namely the tax imposed on Canada's small regional breweries and called the excise tax on beer.

There are several small regional breweries in Quebec. I know that there are also some in Ontario and in other regions of Canada. These small businesses are called microbreweries. I would like to name a few from Quebec: the Brasseurs de la chasse-galerie, in Candiac; the Brasseurs RJ, in Montreal; the Brasseurs du Nord, in Blainville; the Brasserie McAuslan, in Saint-Henri; Unibroue, in Chambly; the Brasserie Saint-Arnould, in Saint-Jovite; and the Seigneuriale, in Boucherville. I am sure that I forgot some. I just wanted to point out that there are several such breweries in Quebec.

The Brewers Association of Canada represented these people before the Standing Committee on Finance, in October. They told us about the difficult situation that these microbreweries are currently facing. They submitted a very good brief and they presented strong arguments in favour of a reduction of the excise tax imposed on Canada's small breweries.

I want to mention that both the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Finance were approached. They were informed of the problems currently faced by small breweries. The ministers promised to look at the matter, but we have yet to hear from them. However, it is important that the government look at the situation of microbreweries. We want to export our products—because we are proud of them—both from Quebec and Canada, but we must give our producers the means to develop them.

Let me explain the situation and the context. In the context of globalization, these small businesses called microbreweries must compete with foreign businesses that have a much smaller tax burden than Canadian companies.

In an increasingly open market, competition is not necessarily coming from within but, rather, from established breweries abroad. These businesses often enjoy preferential tax treatment, which allows them to sell their products at more competitive prices. The Canadian parliament must keep this in mind when legislating.

Currently, France, Germany, Belgium and our U.S. neighbour grant their small breweries a reduction on excise taxes. Canada is one of the few industrialized countries that refuses to give what could be called a privilege, a fair treatment or excise tax parity to its small breweries.

For example, let us take the case of one microbrewery in Canada and another in the United States. In Canada, a brewery producing 6.5 million litres pays federal excise tax of 28 cents a litre, for a total of $1.8 million.

In the United States, the same entrepreneur in Boston, for example, would pay $585,000 rather than $1.8 million, or a tax of 9 cents a litre. So, as hon. members can see, the excise tax in Canada is 28 cents, while in Boston it is 9 cents.

These figures, I think, speak for themselves. For the same production, there is a difference in taxes paid of $1.2 million. What, Mr. Speaker, would you do if you were planning to develop a microbrewery? It would be in your interests to go to the States, because otherwise all your profits would be swallowed up. A company cannot survive such a tax.

This is why the Brewers Association of Canada is calling upon the Government of Canada to make a 60% reduction in the excise tax on the first 75,000 hectolitres produced by Canadian breweries producing a maximum of 300,000 hectolitres annually. In this they have the support of the four largest Canadian breweries belonging to the association. Speaking of major Canadian breweries, I would like to name a few, but I know very well that everyone knows their names.

It must be mentioned that between them, the 53 breweries that pay excise taxes shell out $19 million per year. That is not small potatoes. A study done in 1995 of Ontario breweries demonstrated that the excise tax is nine times greater than profits in the sector, profits estimated to be $2.1 million. Therefore, $19 million was paid in excise taxes by 53 breweries with estimated profits of $2.1 million. Something is not right with this equation. Excise taxes are disproportionately high compared to revenues. This kind of approach leads to bankruptcy. Something really must be done.

There are also repercussions in the regions. These small breweries can be found in just about every region. They are small businesses set up in small communities, which contribute a great deal to their development. They are tourist attractions, which generates employment, and consequently, more financial resources.

Unfortunately, as I explained earlier, this unfair and untenable situation that the industry is up against constitutes a very real threat. Only three months ago, there were 19 small scale breweries in Quebec. Now there are six. They are handing over their profits and them some in excise taxes. These breweries are often being forced into bankruptcy or dire financial straits. Only six of 19 are still in business because five went bankrupt, three closed their doors, two were sold and three are experiencing temporary difficulties.

The situation demands to be rectified. The government must now make decisions that will help these small entrepreneurs.

I am referring to Quebec, but I know that you being a Franco-Ontarian, Mr. Speaker, are surely experiencing the same problem in the regions of Ontario. I spoke of Franco-Ontarians, but the situation also applies to all of Ontario, English speaking Ontario. There are microbreweries for which I could probably quote similar figures.

It begs the question: given the current state of affairs, why should microbreweries continue to invest in Canada, when there are incredible benefits to setting up shop in the United States? I mentioned the example of Boston earlier. Clearly, if I were an entrepreneur wanting to make a profit, by doing an impact or feasibility study, I would see that staying in Canada is not to my advantage.

The excise tax represents a very heavy burden for these small Canadian businesses. It is therefore urgent that the excise tax program be amended.

In other sectors of activity, small businesses investing $1 million in land, equipment and facilities are successful. They hire fifteen or so people and have sales of $1.5 million to $2 million. They make a profit and shareholders take a profit. They are successful.

For microbreweries, it is a completely different scenario. With sales of $1.5 million to $2 million, they barely break even; no clear profit, but a requirement to pay a little over $200,000 in excise taxes to the federal government. The excise taxes are unrelenting. Let us be clear: excise taxes are higher than labour costs. There is no logic to this; the excise tax makes no sense.

The government must recognize that small breweries are distinct and should be taxed accordingly. The government is the only party that still does not recognize this. The amendment requested is minimal compared to the revenues generated by the general tax. The proposed tax break would represent only 2% of what the government collects in excise taxes. Let us be clear that this concerns a small sector which is highly labour-intensive, manufacturing-intensive, with heavy investment, a sector which plays a vital role in small communities and in their provinces.

The current fiscal regime simply does not correspond to the reality of microbreweries. Today, the taxes in this sector add up to 58% of the sales price; excise taxes represent 16% of the sales price, compared to only 4% in the United States. The conclusions are simple: a small brewery operating in Canada pays four times more in excise taxes than one operating in Boston, U.S.A.

If we look at competition within North America, beer sales are considerable between Canada and the United States. For there to be fair competition, it is imperative that the cost structure in both countries be as harmonized as possible.

On both sides of the border, small breweries are manufacturing special products and are competing in the same market. The international situation is such that all distributors in Canada now stock imported beers, which account for 8% of the market. Generally speaking, imports have more than doubled during the last ten years, while the market share of Canadian microbreweries has remained almost unchanged. They are not competitive, particularly as far as the giant U.S. companies are concerned.

One of the reasons for this is that Canadian producers—this is the reason—must pay nearly three times as much in taxes as their American competitors. South of the border, small U.S. breweries are better able to strengthen their trade activities because they shoulder a lighter tax burden, they are able to open new markets and expand their territory.

In 2000, the number of American breweries with an annual production of less than 75,000 hectolitres with exports to Canada doubled compared to 1995, climbing from 6 to 14. Something is not fair. The Americans are able to double the number of companies doing business here, yet we cannot even operate because we pay too much in excise taxes.

For more than eight years now, Canada has been complaining that the U.S. does not respect NAFTA rules and has adopted protectionist measures for its small breweries. NAFTA allows the free trade of goods, but in the current context, the result is catastrophic for small breweries. They are unable to fend for themselves on an equal footing with small American breweries.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is not the problem; the problem is our neighbours, who are not respecting it. They are using discriminatory tax provisions to give their microbreweries an advantage, and as a result, they are penalizing ours. We know they are good at respecting rules when it suits them. We have seen this with softwood lumber; in that case, it does not suit them.

Moreover, what we have to say today, the Minister for International Trade has already heard, as I have said. The minister had no objection to extending the same privileges to small Canadian breweries. As I said, nobody has yet moved on this. Even the Minister of Finance has been informed of the situation, but we are still waiting.

Our businesses are capable of producing products that compare very favourably with others. Our entrepreneurs want to be able to manufacture or sell them at competitive prices. Yet a bad taxation system prevents them from holding their own with foreign competition.

In 1992, Canada made a court challenge on non-compliance with the agreements of the GATT, now known as WTO, or World Trade Organization. A committee mandated to analyze the complaint found that the imposition on eligible producers by the U.S. federal government, as well as some of the state governments, of a lower excise tax on beer sold outside the country, combined with some other practices in place in various states, was not in compliance with U.S. obligations under the GATT or WTO, in that imported beer did not receive the best national treatment.

Ten years have now gone by. Not only has the American government maintained its position, but a number of states have implemented new measures giving their producers favourable treatment. This constitutes real discrimination against the importers of Canadian beers to the U.S.

In conclusion, I feel it is urgent to take steps if we want to see this small brewery sector survive. A reduction in the excise tax on small Canadian breweries, the microbreweries, would respect the policies adopted by the majority of the world's beer producing countries.

Our microbreweries have now been waiting more than eight years for duty parity. The impact on government revenue would be minimal, but the advantageous impact on the sector is undeniable. The government has a duty to do everything in its power to ensure the success of companies and individuals. Reducing the excise tax for Canada's small breweries constitutes one approach to encouraging their growth. This is part of a policy aimed at enhancing the country's productivity and the standard of living of Quebecers and Canadians.

In closing, I would again make the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade aware of the situation so that they will keep the promise they made to the brewers' associations of Canada to reduce the excise tax on microbreweries.

[Species at Risk Act, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 that make up the third group. The House will recall that Bill C-5 replaces Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

This leads me to comment more specifically on the amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who is the Bloc Quebecois critic for the environment. He proposes amending clause 56 of the bill, which reads as follows, “the competent minister may...establish...national...guidelines with respect to the protection of” species.

Yet the second statement of the accord signed in 1996 stated that the minister will establish “a Council of Ministers that will provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes”.

It seems to me as though this government is obsessed with establishing national standards from one end of the country to the other, imposing them in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. The species at risk act is yet another example.

Clause 56 would allow the government, as I said earlier, to establish codes of practice and impose national standards or guidelines, yet the federal government is not responsible for most of the lands involved and has no power over the resource management in these areas.

Therefore, this clause not only violates the division of powers set out in the constitution and interpreted as such over the years, but it also grants broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment.

This bill interferes directly in provincial areas of responsibility and excludes the provinces from making real and direct contributions to the process. Existing laws are ignored. It is an outrage.

Of course, the protection of certain species is only effective if their habitat is also protected. But it is up the provinces to manage this in co-operation with the various stakeholders involved.

Despite the fact that the minister theoretically supports shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces for the protection of species at risk, first, he is disregarding the division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities in managing habitat and protecting species; second, he is ignoring laws that already exist; and third, he is assuming extremely broad powers to protect species. The federal government is therefore going against real environmental harmonization between the different levels of government.

I would also like to mention the position of environmental groups and industry which are opposed to this bill. The bill scares them. The main problem, which seems to have been raised by all these environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists themselves.

Will somebody tell me what sort of decision the minister, who does not have the qualifications and has not studied this area, will take? They will truly be informed. He is excluding the scientists who have been studying these endangered species for years. The minister will tell them what to do simply because he is the minister. It is scandalous too.

Quebec's position on this bill has been expressed by Quebec's minister of the environment. When his federal counterpart first introduced the bill he said that it was just another useless development for Quebec. Quebec's minister said that not only was the bill introduced by the federal government designed to put in place a safety net for endangered species and their habitats on sites under federal jurisdiction but also throughout the territory of Quebec.

While the federal government may be responsible for protecting migratory species, it has no Constitutional authority—this government interprets the constitution when it suits its purposes—with respect to the management of habitats located in provincially owned lands. There can obviously be no question of the government of Quebec sitting by while the federal government invades areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it and tells Quebec how to go about protecting its ecosystems, when Quebec already has legislation to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Quebec's minister said:

Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept umbrella legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

In fact, the government of Quebec believes that legislation such as that proposed in the bill could be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and if it were applied to provincial lands if, and only if, the province or territory specifically so requested.

The Quebec government would not need to use such a provision, since it passed its own act in the late eighties. Indeed, the Quebec government passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989. It also passed an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. These three legal supports provide Quebec with the tools required to identify species at risk, to legally designate them as threatened or at risk, to protect their habitat and to develop implementation plans that provide sufficient protection for species and habitat that are in a precarious situation.

The situation is clear. The province of Quebec and its government do not need a federal act to encroach on its jurisdictions.

With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. It is true that effective action is necessary, but does this bill really make a contribution to improving the protection of our ecosystems and of the endangered species in it? In our view, the answer to the two questions asked at the beginning is negative.

The Bloc Quebecois completely supports the principle of providing additional protection for species. However we do not think the bill would improve the protection of threatened species. In fact, we are opposed to it because it constitutes a direct intrusion into many jurisdictions of Quebec that I just listed.

This bill is liable to create more red tape, rather than to make it possible for the limited resources to be properly channeled where they can do the most good. The government of Quebec is already legislating in the areas addressed by the bill. While acknowledging the urgency of improving the implementation of these statutes, we do not believe the bill will make it possible to achieve results.

We will not let this bill intrude in our jurisdictions. We already have an excellent act and we want to keep it.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for a long time that this fiscal imbalance is hurting the provinces because of the reduction in transfers to the provinces. It stems from there.

The first thing the government did in 1994-95 was to cut drastically the Canada health and social transfer. We know this transfer allows the provinces to provide services, since they are responsible for managing the services that are offered to the public. In Quebec, it is the national assembly that manages health care and education, as well as social services.

The federal government has slashed the Canada nealth and social transfer since 1993-94. And it is no joke: it has gone down from 20¢ to 14¢. It does not make any sense.

There is a lot of talk these days about the aging population, about expensive new technologies and expensive drugs. The needs are increasing in the provinces. The federal government has the responsibility to support the provinces through the Canada social transfer. Now is not the time to slash transfers, especially in light of the fact that the federal government has been closing its books at the end of each fiscal year with billions of dollars in surplus that come from personal income tax, the GST and other taxes. The new airport security tax that has just been introduced will come into effect on April 1. Not only will it pay for the measures that will be put in place, but it will generate more revenues.

The federal government takes all that in and ends up with a $17 billion surplus, while the provinces are struggling to maintain existing social programs. The federal government, whose mandate is to reapportion the tax base, does not care about that. It even laughs in the face of the provinces and, to have a foot in the door, it offers them little goodies.

That is why it established the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. It is a way for this centralizing government to get what it wants, which is to take away the provinces' jurisdictions. That is what it wants even though it plays us for fools and thinks that we do not know what it is up to. It wants to have control over everything and uses all possible means to get it; it is starving the provinces. This is also what is behind the social union. It is a good thing that Quebec did not ratify it. We can see today what the government is doing with that.

We heard that the provinces were selling their birthright for a dime. This government has forced the provinces to sell their jurisdictions. That is what is meant by fiscal imbalance.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time the Bloc Quebecois speaks up in the House against the dysfunction of Canadian federalism and its negative impact on the provinces.

Since coming here in 1993 we have intervened regularly to show that the line of conduct followed by the liberal government is pushing provinces, especially Quebec, to the limit. Wrongfully, some people resented our position and accused us of politicizing the issue. They know better today because our point of view on the dysfunction of the federative system in Canada is shared by the conference board, an independent non-Quebec organization that cannot be accused of being a natural partisan of ours.

Even if the government refuses to face reality, the Commission on Fiscal Imbalance chaired by Yves Séguin, a former liberal MP, describes very well the problem between the central government and the provinces. It comes to the same conclusions as us, namely that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in Quebec as well as the other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel.

By refusing to face reality, this government is only looking for a fight. Obviously, it is not with this kind of attitude that it will be possible to find solutions.

On what planet are the Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs living, when they repeat constantly that there is no fiscal imbalance?

The Séguin commission was praised by all the analysts for the high quality of its work. In Quebec City, the three parties unanimously agree with its findings, which lay the foundations for a fundamental debate on the future of the Canadian federation.

Our fellow citizens know now that the status quo cannot continue. They are the ones who are paying for the inappropriate sharing of tax resources. In Quebec, seven out of ten people believe there is a fiscal imbalance. It is obvious that there are problems in tax resource sharing and that the way this government is proceeding does not correspond to the needs.

How can this Liberal government and its ministers justify the fact that the provinces are literally collapsing under the burden of health expenses while their government is raking in surpluses in Ottawa?

The Séguin commission tried to determine if this was a structural or an economic phenomenon. In the past several years, the provinces have been reacting to the arbitrary nature of the federal transfer program on which they depend to balance their budgets. The program is so arbitrary that the federal government changes the rules as it sees fit.

Must I remind the House of the words of the current Prime Minister who, in 1999, showed how arbitrary his government was in determining transfer amounts? He said, “There are mornings when I want to give them money and then, the next morning, I say no. We will see at the time of the budget”. This was in La Presse on January 16, 1999.

This statement clearly shows that the federal government has total discretion in determining the amounts provided to the provinces, an arbitrary discretion that goes against the very principle of the federation.

The arbitrary nature of the Canada health and social transfer and the federal government's withdrawal, in addition to the enormous surpluses past and future, will maintain Quebec and the other provinces in an uncertain financial situation. The provincial governments will continue to have a very hard time making ends meet and providing health care services, among other things.

The finance minister can say that the provinces are receiving lots of funds through the Canada health and social transfer and the equalization program, but the Séguin report shows that these programs are flawed.

Not surprisingly, prominent government members think that fiscal imbalance is a myth. They are the ones who have assumed the right to spend in areas that are not within their jurisdiction. It is annoying to see how much energy they spend denying the fact that the fiscal imbalance has been growing over the last decade; it is indecent for them to refuse all our proposals for rectifying the situation; it is unconscionable that they would say that provinces have problems because they lowered income tax too much. It is ludicrous.

The government would do well to read the report of the Séguin commission. The arguments it uses to deny the fiscal imbalance are rebutted in that document one after the other. The arguments of the Minister of Finance are said to be unconvincing, since they do not recognize the existence or the size of the fiscal imbalance, which is detrimental to provinces.

The situation has been going on since the mid-nineties when the federal government intensified its cuts in social transfers to the provinces. The government then acted drastically without taking into account their impacts on social, health and education programs. Its investment went from 18¢ to 14¢.

Between 1994 and 2002, the government pulled out. Its share of expenditures for health, education and social services went from 18.1% to 14.1%. I want to stress that its contribution was 23% in 1984-85.

In so doing the Liberal government gave itself some leeway it is using to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It gradually changed the rules for cost sharing. Thus we went from a system where both levels of government were sharing the costs and risks to a block funding system in which it controls the funding parameters as it pleases.

The governments's withdrawal from its funding responsibilities for health, post-secondary education and income security is a key element of the fiscal imbalance. The drastic cuts enabled the federal government to improve its own fiscal health at the expense of the provinces.

In Quebec alone changes to the Canada social transfer deprived the province of $4.7 billion in revenues just for fiscal 2001-02. Because of that, the impact of federal cuts has been more pronounced in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.

The conclusion is obvious: the federal government has reduced the ability of provinces, particularly that of Quebec, to efficiently deliver services in areas under their jurisdiction. The federal government's backing out is one of the direct causes of the fiscal imbalance.

I am compelled to say that in many cases taxpayers do not know anymore which level of government is responsible for services. The federal government has no qualm about encroaching on areas under provincial jurisdiction, thus creating useless and harmful duplication.

In conclusion, there are ways to rectify the situation and achieve a better distribution of resources. The Bloc Quebecois, in its customary fashion, has put forward solutions to reduce this imbalance without plunging the federal government back into a deficit situation.

At the very least, as we have always asked for, transfers to the provinces should be restored to the 1994-95 levels. It is a short term and very imperfect solution though.

As Quebec has never stopped asking for, the federal government must withdraw from areas under provincial jurisdiction and provide fiscal or monetary compensation.

I know we have a long way to go. This government does not seem to be willing to solve the fiscal imbalance. It is more interested in pursuing its own goals, namely to be interventionist and centralizing instead of meeting the needs of Quebec and the Canadian provinces.

The emergency is real. Quebec society, whose fiscal and economic autonomy is being stifled by the federal government, must rise and fight to avoid being asphyxiated.

The federal government's attitude is one more reason to maintain that Quebec will only truly come into its own when it has achieved sovereignty.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the member for Richmond--Arthabaska for his statement. It was very interesting.

I agree with him when he says that, regarding the Séguin report or fiscal imbalance, the members opposite keep rehashing the same old arguments. That was obvious in the debate on the Canada Health and social transfer.

These two arguments are equalization and tax points. It is clear that members from the government side who speak to this issue have not read the Séguin report. I have a feeling they do not know what we are talking about when we speak about fiscal imbalance. I think their texts were written by senior officials who always use the same line about equalization and tax points.

I would like to ask my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition, the hon. member for Richmond--Arthabaska, to explain what are tax points and why they were created.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech made by the government member, and I do not know if she read the Séguin commission report. Nonetheless, I wish to hear her comments.

In the report, the consequences of the fiscal imbalance were summed up in three main findings: first, citizens' needs are poorly covered; second, the provision of insured services by governments suffers efficiency losses; and, third, the decision-making and budgetary independence of the provinces is compromised.

On the issue of poorly covered needs, the Association des hôpitaux du Québec had this to say:

The cuts made to federal transfers have reduced the capability of Quebec's health care system to absorb the rising demand for health care as well as the rising costs, which limits accessibility and even threatens the quality of health care.

As for the efficiency losses, we are talking about management and provision of social programs. The director of the World Bank said this:

In many countries, the system of intergovernmental transfers is not based on an established formula, and the government decides, at its discretion, what amount will be transferred. Therefore, the intergovernmental transfer system of these countries is not transparent, and is the object of negotiations.

I would like to hear the member on that.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his most eloquent speech, which gave us a clear idea of the findings and recommendations contained in the Séguin report.

I want to ask him to summarize for us in greater detail the consequences of the fiscal imbalance, which means that the money is in Ottawa while the provinces are struggling to meet the needs in areas under their jurisdiction. I wonder if he could explain that to us and also if he could say a few words about the consensus that exists not only in Quebec but across Canada about the credibility of the Séguin report and the fact that a fiscal imbalance does indeed exist.

[Airport Security, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems not to understand the irreparable harm that this tax is going to have on the regions.

Does he agree with this dubious approach, which means the government will be making a profit at the expense of regional development?