Ronald J. Duhamel

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a couple of questions very quickly.

I am not sure whether or not members of the Reform Party oppose the broadening of the tax base. I stand to be corrected, but I understand they would prefer not to have any more taxes added to those which exist.

Do Reform members oppose the broadening of the tax base? Do they oppose blocking the loopholes certain groups enjoy by transferring money to other countries where there are certain advantages? Apparently some wealthy families are able to shield income. There are corporations making money and not paying taxes and wealthy Canadians who have paid no taxes. There is the black market economy where people avoid paying taxes. Are they suggesting to the Minister of Finance and this government that they should not move in that direction, that they should ignore those particular measures? I am very much interested in the response.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member, and I have a pretty straightforward question.

I also listened to what was said by the hon. member's colleagues, who had nothing constructive to say about the equalization program. They said it made Quebec poorer, that it was no help at all, and that it was clumsy and cumbersome and harmful. But could they not find anything positive to say about it? Nothing at all? Nothing.

Thank you, I don't think I need an answer after all.

The answer is clear. Now it will be up to Canadians and Quebecers to decide whether my question and the answer I got is right: the whole thing is no good.

Now that really sounds responsible. That sounds like a team that is going to make something of this province. Well, I am not impressed.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's presentation in the sense that he had obviously thought very carefully about what he was going to say. Clearly what he has said reflects the fact that he studied it for some time. Although we may have some differ-

ences on how this major problem he has underlined might be approached, I respect what was said.

What bothers me certainly is not the approach he has taken or the content of the address. But today there were two remarks made by members of the Reform Party which bothered me a great deal.

Looking at the transfer payments it is correct that Quebec gets 47 per cent of the transfer payments, but there is the additional bit of information that Quebec represents roughly 60 per cent of the people who get transfer payments.

I am wondering why his party would want to give the impression, which I got and I am not from Quebec, that Quebec was being favoured. We heard from Quebecers today, our friends the separatists-some of them are friends-who feel they are not getting enough.

Another thing that bothers me is there seemed to be a suggestion that Manitoba was being favoured by this formula. I am from Manitoba. If that was the suggestion I am offended, unless I can be clearly shown that it is true.

Now correct me if I am wrong. I am one of those members of Parliament who accepts the fact that he could be wrong. It seems to me that yesterday one of the hon. member's colleagues said the Reform Party would reduce the amount of transfer payments. If so, by how much and what would be the impact on Saskatchewan and my home province of Manitoba?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I have several questions for her. First, I would like her to explain to the House and to those listening to this debate the difference between sovereignty and separation, because I do not really see any difference between these two concepts. I have to say that when I talk to Canadians, not only those outside Quebec but those in Quebec as well, they have some difficulty understanding the concepts. I think that when the hon. member uses the word "sovereignty" or "sovereigntist", it is simply to hide the true objective. That is my first question.

As for my second question, I greatly appreciate that the hon. member has taken the time to explain her position, but is she prepared to concede that this is only one viewpoint? I find it amazing that in all the years that have gone by, nothing good has been done for Quebec as far as transfer payments are concerned. What you are doing, Madam, through you, Madam Speaker, is the same thing that the Reform party did today. It was dishonest when it tried to make Canadians believe that out of a total of nearly $8 billion in transfer payments, Quebec received $3 billion, or 47 per cent of the total. What they neglected to say-and they know this-was that Quebecers account for 60 per cent of those who receive equalization payments.

Is the hon. member not trying to do the same thing, namely choosing situations that promote her aims, namely separation? She is trying to make Canadians, and in particular those who live in Quebec, believe that it is unhealthy to be a part of this beautiful country, that it is impossible to sit down and negotiate new agreements that would satisfy their requirements. I find that astonishing.

I was surprised to see the hon. member do the same thing as Reformers who must be getting a little nervous. They are trying to make the voters believe that Quebec receives more than its fair share. They are claiming that Quebec receives 47 per cent of transfer payments whereas in actual fact, it accounts for 60 per cent and more of the population receiving such payments.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to respond to my comments?

[Voyageur Festival, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, from February 11 to 20, this year, the members of the community of St. Boniface will don their voyageur garb and welcome you to a great winter festival, one of the biggest in the world.

This year, the Voyageur Festival will celebrate its 25th anniversary and feature well-known Franco-Manitoban artists like Daniel Lavoie and Gérald Laroche, and also Marie-Denise Pelletier, Richard Séguin, La Bottine Souriante and many more.

There will be a host of popular shows and events featuring performers from all over the world. Come and see Voyageur Park, Fort Gibraltar, winter promenades and La Fourche, a historic park that showcases artifacts reflecting the rich heritage of the founding nations of Manitoba.

This year, more than ever, I am giving an open invitation to all my colleagues. I would like them to come to the Voyageur Festival and see that we have a dynamic and proud French-speaking community which knows how to celebrate its traditions and its contribution as well as those of the other founding peoples.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. I agree with her first comment. Indeed there are major differences between national and international standards. However, the process is quite similar in that elected representatives sit down together to discuss issues and reach some agreement. The agreement is not imposed: it is negotiated. I do hope that the hon. member will recognize that other side of the coin. Of course, nothing can be perfect but this is not to say that there is no similarity, because there is some similarity.

The hon. member also said that the Canadian government imposes its decisions, but the Quebec government has also done the same on occasion, as well as the government for the Northwest Territories. It may be that we impose our views too often. But to claim that Canada constantly does that is unfair, insensitive and totally inappropriate.

I would like to make another comment. If, some day, Quebec does become an independent nation, then that new nation will decide how it will negotiate and decide whether it wants to deal with Canada. But this is not a fait accompli. Why not work within the existing structure? Why not consider that your party, which forms the Official Opposition, is there to represent all Canadians? I deplore the fact that this is often overlooked. We only talk about Quebec, Quebec and Quebec. I truly love Quebec. My ancestors came from Quebec. I have not forgotten my language nor my culture, but I have a responsibility, as the member for St. Boniface, to represent not only my constituents but also the rest of Canada. And that includes Quebec.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the renewal of the equalization program for the next five years, starting April 1, 1994, because I believe that this transfer program is among the most important. In a way, it makes our country unique, in that we are ready to share, albeit imperfectly, the wealth of all this great country.

According to the current provisions, equalization payments will grow from $8 billion in 1993-94 to $10.4 billion in 1998-99, that is, within five years. This is an average annual growth rate of more than 5 per cent. It is a very large growth rate, considering the financial situation we are in now.

What are we trying to do with this program? Well, quite simply, we are trying to establish a level of funding within Canada to provide services of comparable quality for all citizens. As I just said, it is an important program, although less than perfect, but it still succeeds in giving more to the provinces that have less.

We were just talking about national standards. I accept them provided that they are established with elected officials who meet and discuss possible objectives. Then the provinces should be allowed, not just allowed but asked, because some of them have a constitutional responsibility, to decide how they will achieve these objectives that were established in discussion, dialogue and co-operation with one another.

I find the following fact interesting. Are agreements like GATT or NAFTA not bilateral or multilateral standards? If I understood correctly, the program between the province of Quebec and the federal government was just being criticized. There is a flagrant contradiction in that. Clearly they are prepared to enter agreements with other countries involving dialogue, discussion and co-operation, but here, because we belong to the same country, they are not prepared to do so. I find that unfortunate and even unhealthy.

I believe that all Canadians, including Quebecers-note that I do not say Canadians and Quebecers; I say "all Canadians, including Quebecers"-derive significant benefit from this transfer program.

I was just indicating that this is one of the very important transfer programs because it attempts to ensure that all Canadians, whether they live in the territories, in Quebec, in my home province of Manitoba or wherever in this grand nation, receive comparable levels of service so that the quality of life for each Canadian is as even as possible and as like one another as possible.

It is not perfect but let us remember that it is an attempt to redistribute wealth so that we can have from our provincial governments and from other levels of government services that compare favourably with one another and that we do not have one part of the country so terribly disadvantaged that the basic essentials of life such as health, education and other services do not exist or have for all intents and purposes disappeared.

We want to remind each other that there are three provinces which give. That is often forgotten. The provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario redistribute some of their wealth to the seven other provinces. It is unfortunately something that is forgotten and probably something that is resented by certain citizens of those provinces on occasion. I would say generally speaking it is reasonably well accepted that those with more, even though it has been difficult, will share some of that extra.

It must be remembered as well that this is an unconditional transfer payment. In other words we do not really put conditions that it must be spent on such and such a program.

However it must be spent in such a way that the essential programs or those basic programs to citizens are maintained so that they enjoy as much as possible a quality of life as similar as possible to that of others in other jurisdictions.

I have heard today the ceiling and the floor criticized. Surely if we are going to be responsible we need to have a ceiling and a floor. We cannot simply pay out without any restrictions. We cannot simply let the bottom fall out without any restrictions.

I was really surprised that no one got up and applauded the government or said thanks for having come to its senses unlike the previous government. Five years of this particular program has been given so we can plan. We know what the ceiling is. We know what the floor is. Now we can make decisions much more easily on those programs that are under our jurisdiction, our responsibility. Perhaps that will happen before the debate is over. I am hoping it does.

Finally, we need to remind ourselves that if we did not have the program there would be a lot less equity, a lot less fairness. Some provinces would have a lot less than others. This gives us a sort of efficiency capacity, in other words being like one another in terms of providing basic essential services, of roughly 93 per cent as opposed to roughly 85 per cent if we did not have this.

It makes up a significant contribution to equalization of services to bring additional equity into the country in the services we offer our citizenry.

Let me make two final comments before I invite remarks. I want to read to Canadians and my colleagues here the kinds of moneys being transferred through this particular program during fiscal 1993-1994.

For example, we transferred $910 million to the Northwest Territories, $164 million to Prince Edward Island, $880 million to Nova Scotia, $895 million to New Brunswick, $3.739 billion to Quebec, $854 million to Manitoba and $522 million to Saskatchewan, for a total of nearly $8 billion in 1993-94.

This is a lot of dollars being redistributed for the benefit of citizens who happen to live in those particular provinces and in those two territories.

I believe this is the kind of program that makes Canada unique. It is the kind of program that takes, even in very difficult times such as the ones we are experiencing right now, from those who have more-the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario-and redistributes to those other seven provinces and the territories that have considerably less, relatively speaking.

I applaud the government for the five-year program, for the limitations that it has put in place, because it is good for long-term planning. It is wise management. I would hope we would put aside our political differences which need to exist for a moment at least to see how the program can serve Canadians and perhaps be improved.

I think that is what we should aim for today, tomorrow and beyond.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated some of the comments made by my hon. colleague. I would, however, like to ask him a question. With respect to national standards, it seems to me that the Bloc is truly unaware of what it going on in the world today.

In Europe, for instance, a number of countries have established national standards that go way beyond what had long been in existence as far as different cultures, languages and so forth were concerned. Why this hesitation to go along with national standards? Why can we not sit down together and agree on reasonable national standards and give the provinces the chance to decide how they will meet these standards? Why dismiss or simply ignore what is going on in a number of other countries in the world, not to mention the benefits of having national standards?

There seems to be a feeling that national standards are a bad thing. This is not the case and I would like the hon. member to comment on this point.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address and I ask a couple of brief questions.

I listened rather carefully but I did not hear any reference, although there might have been, to other countries utilizing some of the concepts that he has put forward. Are there examples of other countries doing exactly that?

The other question is in terms of cost. Do we have any notion as to how costly this would be?

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his address and ask two brief questions.

The first one relates to his suggestion that there are particular reasons why members might be recalled. I wonder whether he would like to share those with us.

My second question is whether his party has costed out the expenditures that would have to be undertaken in order to have a by-election under those circumstances. How expensive would that be?