Guy St-Julien

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your comment, my paper was blocking the microphone, and I apologize. I am brand new in the House of Commons, I have just arrived.

On the subject of equalization payments, which vary enormously from one province to another, we can see that Quebec receives a lot less than the others. This is not injustice, it simply reflects the fact that Quebec is the least poor of the poor provinces.

Payments made under the Canada social transfer, which are based merely on the population size, do not vary obviously a lot from one location to another. On the subject of transfers between provinces and with respect to Quebec, there was a very spectacular drop, which must be situated in a broader context. There are columns on the right and on the left. For Quebec, the equalization payment was $216 of the Canada transfer and for the others it was $1.381 billion.

The figure is based on the size of federal transfers not as a function of provincial budgets but rather of the economy of the individual provinces. We can see that the federal transfers have not decreased in Quebec; they have increased. This may appear odd but it is true. However, the amounts are the same. How can this be? For my friends of the Bloc Quebecois, I would point out that provincial governments' expenditures increased much more rapidly than federal transfers until 1990. This is the history of federal transfers.

The other day they were talking about health care. There is a small community at Clova, and I heard the PQ MNA, Jean-Pierre Jolivet, say “They are closing the CLSC in the small town of Clova and transferring it to Parent. We are not the ones transferring it. The federal government is to blame”. Who took the decision to transfer a nurse from Clova to Parent at a cost of almost $30,000? The decision to transfer this small centre from Clova to Parent was made by ministers, by Lucien Bouchard and Jean-Pierre Jolivet.

I would like to say something. When it comes to job creation, what is the role of the government? What is the role of the government in the Province of Quebec? If we look at the government's role—

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.

Today, I wish to address the motion tabled by the NDP. I listened to several speakers from the Bloc Quebecois who raised the issues of federal transfers, employment, health, inflation and monetary policy.

For three and a half years the Bloc Quebecois has been urging the federal government to amend its monetary policy to take into account its impact on employment, saying “We believe that the Bank of Canada's strategy condemns the Canadian economy to operate below its potential. To keep inflation at a very low level adversely affects the economy, and the benefits of such a policy have not been demonstrated”.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, the Bank of Canada's monetary policy is based on an excessive desire to throttle inflation by maintaining high real interest rates. It is a policy which impacts negatively on employment and on the economy as a whole.

To stimulate employment and to promote economic recovery and development, the Bloc Quebecois proposes an in-depth review of the Canadian monetary policy, and primarily a change in the monetary policy, so that the inflation target of the Bank of Canada, through its interest rate policy and the expansion of the monetary supply, would be set at 3%, with a variation of plus or minus 1%.

During these months and years, Bloc members proposed an inflation rate target of 3%, rather than 2%, as is currently the case, with the same 2% variation. This, they claimed, would result in the creation of 460,000 jobs, while also bringing the unemployment rate down to under 7%. As we know, the idea was put forward by Pierre Fortin, a professor of economics from Montreal, before the finance committee, when it was doing preliminary work for the budget. It seems that the Bloc members bought Mr. Fortin's arguments, since they adopted this idea in their report.

When we came to power, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada agreed to aim at a lower inflation rate. Thanks to a moderate monetary policy and the effectiveness of the new deficit reduction measures, interest rates have not been this low for 35 years.

When we came to power, Canadian interest rates were two points higher than U.S. rates. Today, the opposite is true.

I would like to paint you a picture. We have heard the Bloc members speaking numerous times today about federal transfer payments. What exactly are federal transfer payments in Canada?

Whether the topic is offloading the deficit, health care or welfare cuts, or whether there is a more sophisticated debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the federal system, the question of transfer payments to the provinces keeps coming up in the House of Commons, in the Quebec National Assembly, in ridings throughout the great province of Quebec.

Let us make an important distinction right away. There are two sorts of transfer payments: equalization payments and social program funding. Equalization payments are calculated in a complex way, based on the fiscal capacity of each province. The idea is to ensure all Canadians, whether they live in rich provinces or poor, of access to public services that are more or less equivalent in quality. Equalization payments have no strings attached, in other words the provinces may use them however they see fit. That is important: the provinces may use them however they see fit.

Equalization payments have not, however, always been affected by federal transfer payment reductions.

When we speak of offloading the deficit, we are referring essentially to the other transfers. That is the truth. Up to last year, these transfers were made under two programs, that is established programs funding, such as for education and health, and the Canada assistance plan, social assistance.

The Minister of Finance regrouped all that in a single program, the Canada social transfer, much less generous, to be sure. But if we look at the significance of the federal tables for each province for the 1996-97 fiscal period, the figures are expressed in a per capita basis. It goes without saying—

[Division No. 11, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Reform Party member claims that they will rise to the challenge. It will be noted that there are 30 Reform members here tonight. The rest are off to Monday night bingo.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

That is a good point.

[Infrastructure Program, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Government of Quebec and the separatist MNA from Val d'Or in Abitibi-Est, André Pelletier, are taking their time approving projects under part II of the Canada-Quebec infrastructure rehabilitation program.

There are over $7 million in projects from the riding of Abitibi-Est on the desk of Minister Rémi Trudel. Separatist MNA André Pelletier is still holding up approval of these 1997 projects. He is playing hide-and-seek with the people of the municipalities of Val d'Or, Barraute, Senneterre, Sullivan, and Malartic and area, making joint announcements of these projects difficult.

The people of Abitibi-Est would like the Government of Quebec to give more than 50% approval for these projects worth $7 million.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Nothing, zilch. I tried this system of public funding. It is true. It is in my notes and in the books in the library.

I also wanted to answer the member for Témiscamingue. Earlier he said that nine individuals had contributed to his campaign fund in 1993. In the 1984 elections, I received $8,015 from individuals. In 1988, $23,870; in 1993, $1,950. In these three elections, I received $33,835 from 198 individuals.

In 1984, from business, I received $17,940; in 1988, nothing; and in 1993, $9,400. I received $27,340 from 126 businesses. That means I was a better candidate. I got 198 donations from individuals and 126 from businesses. That is a matter of record. It is in the library.

I want to return to the comments by the member for Lévis and what the Liberal member for Gatineau said on funding. It is true, but we should go a little lower than $5,000. If there were a free vote in the House, I would be the first to vote in favour, because I think it is a fine method. You look to the people and find the way to improve.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks by the member for Lévis, I tried the system in 1988.

Looking at my notes for the 1988 election, I see I had 109 individuals contribute $23,870 to my riding fund.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

How much did he give after?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, may I have the permission of the Bloc Quebecois to hand my props to the clerk?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

If they let me speak, I could complete what I had to say on spending. I want to tell you that in the previous years, I was travelling with the Quebec government, the Liberal government in Quebec, aboard its F-27. In 1993, I got more invitations to travel to New Quebec and—