Antoine Dubé

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

It is a case of bulimia.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for her very well structured speech.

I should like to ask her the following question: what are, in her opinion, the consequences of this imbalance? She spoke about it, but I would like to hear her elaborate further on this fiscal imbalance as it pertains to areas of jurisdiction that are clearly provincial, such as health care, education and assistance to the most disadvantaged.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Not this time.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Jonquière for her enthusiastic speech on this issue. I really liked the points she made, particularly her regional perspective.

She comes from a region—and the situation is the same in the lower St. Lawrence, Abitibi and other regions—where not only young people are leaving, but, according to Statistics Canada's reports, they are also moving to major cities in Quebec and elsewhere. This is what is happening at present.

I would like to give her more time so she can explain to me the impact of this on regional finances. In a statement he made yesterday, the Minister of International Commerce seemed to say that, in the end—in the spirit of the second point made by the member—members opposite do not seem to have very strong convictions. The minister responsible says he does not think there is much chance that negotiations will lead to an agreement, following the meeting today between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the U.S.

I would like the member to comment on this kind of opinion and to tell us whether she considers such comments useful, because they seem to mean that we are already admitting defeat.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is one principle in which I believe and that is that one must be convinced one's self before one can convince anyone else.

I would like to remind the member who just spoke that, prior to 1993, the Liberals were in favour of ending the Free Trade Agreement—“scrapping” it, as they put it. The problem has gone on for a year now.

I am thrilled to hear the member talk about it today, but I wonder why he is doing so. Is it because the Ontario members were less concerned about this, given that it may not have been as important, or that it did not have as great an impact as in British Columbia or Quebec, where 25% of the production takes place?

Will he tell me why they took so long and why their resolve to convince the United States to do something is so weak?

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the elections approach in Zimbabwe, human rights violations are on the rise.

At the same time as foreign journalists and observers are being expelled, the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai is being accused of treason.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that the Prime Minister, who will be attending the Commonwealth meeting in Australia, will support Tony Blair and other members who are demanding immediate sanctions against President Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. Like the vast majority of the residents of my riding, I am very concerned about all environmental issues.

Our riding is very near the St. Lawrence River and a number of zones that border the St. Lawrence contain species of plants and animals that are important, but that are threatened. So, this is an issue that concerns many people. In principle, it is fair to say that we all support this initiative unanimously, since it is an extremely important matter.

However, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the way this legislation is drafted, it does not take the provincial legislatures into account sufficiently, particularly Quebec's jurisdiction. Since 1989, Quebec has had legislation with the same objectives. Obviously, it does not always satisfy everyone.

As we know, when it comes to the environment, though many agree with the objectives, they do not agree with the means. I listened to my colleague from the Alliance who expressed her wish that we count on the goodwill of owners of private property, farmers for example, to protect species, be they animal or vegetable.

We know full well however that when it comes to the environment, goodwill is not always enough. There needs to be laws and regulations to better protect the common good, and this has to be done respecting the existing jurisdictions. In most of the cases that this bill targets, when it comes to Quebec, they are already protected. There may be room for improvement, but protection already exists.

As for cross border species—mostly birds and fish that cross provincial boundaries—if the bill targeted more specifically migratory birds, we in the Bloc Quebecois could have provided our support for the bill in short order, but it goes much beyond this.

Basically, this bill designates the federal government as judge. It says “there are areas in Canada where the environment is less respected than others. We know best how to act. We will not take into account what is happening in the provinces and we will impose wall to wall, in this area as in others—we could mention education, health— measures that will apply everywhere”.

Of course the bill mentions co-operation with the provinces, but there are many passages in it where it says “to the extent possible”. There is always an “if possible” that infers that if the federal Minister of the Environment does not manage to convince one or several of his colleagues of something during discussions, it does not matter, because all he has to do is impose his will.

We should see if this type of negotiations is constitutionally acceptable, but that is not the subject of today's debate. I do not sit on the bench of the supreme court, so I cannot assess this point.

However, we wonder about this and we deplore such an attitude. The federal government will negotiate, have talks with the provinces, try to harmonize policies, but if things do not work out, it will have the final say.

This is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, you know that very well, since you are quite knowledgeable about history—I know because I often discuss these topics with you—and you also know the Constitution very well. It is not you whom I must convince. I know that you readily agree with me that the spirit of the Constitution should be respected, by sovereignists and federalists alike, as long as the situation in Quebec remains unchanged.

What was the spirit of Confederation in 1867? The federal government was not a higher level of government that dominated the four original provinces that were behind the Constitution. It had to act in the spirit of a confederation, as is the case in Germany, in Switzerland and in various other countries, where the process is based on consultation. And when there is disagreement, it must continue to discuss the issue in order to come to an agreement. But this is not how Ottawa sees things now, and this is particularly true of this government.

The Liberal government begins a discussion that is limited in time, and that limit is set by the government itself. When it decides that this is it, the discussion ends with the federal government saying “Sorry, but since we did not manage to convince you, we will do this in the interests of the nation, which take precedence”.

A few days ago, when we were reviewing another bill—in fact it was during the debate on the Bloc Quebecois' motion on health—I heard a Liberal member say that, even though health is not a federal jurisdiction under the Constitution, the federal government had to spend in the best interests of the nation. This is how he justified federal spending in that area. He then added that, since the federal government is spending, it must have a say in how this area is managed—even though it has no business in it—again in the name of the nation's best interests, a principle which is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

When a Quebecer, an Ontarian or any other citizen is elected to the provincial legislature—let us take the case of Quebec—it is as if that person had lost his judgment, even though he has been elected by his constituents, just as we are. It is as if, all of a sudden, he had lost the judgment and the rigour that elected representatives should possess.

Supporting the bill as it now stands would be to accept this domination, which is seen as normal by certain members opposite, whereby the federal government is a superior government, composed of superior individuals with superior knowledge in all matters, although I am sure that many members spoke without even having read the bill. If all members read every clause of this bill, they would see that a good number of them irritate, suggest interference in provincial jurisdiction, and create duplication.

The public sees it as duplication when two levels of government wish to do the same thing, resulting in twice the cost, and two kinds of officials, who argue with each other. We can even see it starting here in the House of Commons, where members do not see eye to eye because they have two different concepts of the current Canadian federal system.

I have not just made a sovereignist argument. I did not mention sovereignty during my speech. I am merely going by the spirit of the 1867 Constitution. But there are in fact areas of shared jurisdiction, environment being one of them.

Just as the management of public and even private lands, and natural resources come under provincial jurisdiction, it goes without saying that even if species are threatened, when they are swimming in our rivers or flying and crossing borders, we must look after them. That is the crux of what I am saying.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, not everybody is in agreement on this issue. Some people think that Quebec, for instance, should request it. In fact, Duplessis did in some way by collecting personal income tax directly, and the federal government never challenged him before the supreme court. However, Quebec never went to the supreme court to challenge this whole thing, because many Quebecers feel that the supreme court always leans the same way. Consultation is therefore not guaranteed.

One thing is for sure, there is an agreement with the provinces to request what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for, which is the transfer of tax points for health care.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second question is of course yes. This is really what all the provinces are asking.

An agreement was reached shortly before the 2000 general election, but it only re-established transfer payments to about 80% of what they were before. Given the stubbornness of the federal government, the provinces agreed, at the time, to at least recover that portion.

Since then, federal surpluses have increased, as have the provinces' problems, because of the increase in health costs due to the aging population, drugs and technologies. People live longer but, at the same time, they are likely to be sick over a longer period.

The term “illegal” may be a little strong, but during the war it was not illegal, since an agreement had been reached. Because of the war effort, the provinces had agreed to sort of lease the right to collect taxes in this area. Now, the federal government—and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot demonstrated it very clearly—sees a possibility here, because of the increase which, some years, was of the order of 7%. Personal income tax has increased much more quickly than other types of taxes, including corporate tax, which has actually gone down, if we take into account the gross national product.

The federal government has developed a liking for personal tax, so much so that 60% of its revenue comes from taxes paid by Quebecers, compared to 40% for the Quebec government, even though cost increases are taking place in two critical areas, namely health and education.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question, but I am going to focus as promptly as possible on the motion the House is addressing at the present time. I would like to reread it:

That this House condemn the government for withdrawing from health-care funding, for no longer shouldering more than 14 per cent of the costs of health care, and for attempting to invade provincial areas of jurisdiction by using the preliminary report by the Romanow Commission to impose its own vision of health care.

The statement the hon. member has just made about the last part of the speech by the member across the way refers to the end of it. The federal government claims it has no responsibility to deliver, to assume, health care in the provinces. It is not in the constitution. He admits that. But at the same time he says: “Yes but the federal government has already paid a considerable amount for health care and has passed legislation establishing national standards”. There are five or six principles, including accessibility. He says: “Since we are spending money, even if it is not in the constitution, we want the federal government to have a say”.

Now, it seems there has always been a misunderstanding about health and education. It is mainly the case in those two areas of jurisdiction. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned it earlier. According to projections, in 2010-11, this will represent 85% of the Government of Quebec's spending if nothing is done to change the cost sharing. The same thing goes for the other provinces.

Basically, if nothing is done to gradually bring this fiscal strangulation to an end, this will be the end result. The federal government has reduced its contribution to health and education funding since the abolition of the Canada social transfer, but at the same time it wants to force its own standards on provinces. It is within that perspective that Mr. Romanow is reviewing the system. It is to change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

Before the first world war, there was no federal income tax for services, none for health and education. Moreover, in the early days of Confederation, before the creation of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council in London was responsible for settling disputes between the provinces and the federal government. On two or three occasions, disputes were settled before the Privy Council in London. Each time, when direct taxes were an issue—even though it was about private matters provinces considered direct taxation to be in their area of jurisdiction—, the Privy Council supported the provincial governments' position regarding personal income tax.

As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot reminded us earlier, during the second world war the federal government asked for more and again asked the provinces' permission—as it had done during the first world war—to collect personal income taxes. This was for a very urgent and important purpose, funding the war effort.

Each time, the provinces allowed the federal government to collect personal income taxes. But after the second world war, having had a taste of personal income tax and finding it easier to ask, the federal government asked the provinces to turn it over for good. At the time, both Ontario and Quebec objected, while the other provinces said “Fine. The federal government can collect taxes as long as we get our fair share”. The provinces agreed, except for Quebec and Ontario.

Finally, under huge pressure, Ontario eventually yielded to the federal government and let it collect personal income taxes in exchange for cash transfers to fund certain types of care.

But Quebec, then under Maurice Duplessis, had objected. It finally decided to raise its own personal income taxes and to set up its own ministry. As a matter of fact, Quebec is the only province with a revenue ministry. It has all the officials and the means needed to collect personal income taxes.

The motion before us today deals with health care. I will remind the House that this is a nearly exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the health critic and member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, will confirm what I am saying, but the federal government has jurisdiction over which drugs may be put on the market. This is an area of federal jurisdiction. The federal government decides whether a product is a drug or a medication. It is responsible for labelling tobacco a dangerous product or not. Then there is the whole debate on marijuana—and we are aware of this whole aspect because under the criminal code, the federal government has jurisdiction in this area. But it has never been the intent of the constitution or the confederation for the federal government to have the slightest responsibility for health care or education. But today, we are talking about health care.

However, the federal government, with its spending authority, but especially since the second world war, waded into this area. Some provinces wanted to take part, others did not. The federal government wanted to encourage them by saying, “provinces wishing to intervene in health care can do so, and we will give up to 50%”. This lasted for a while. Then, Ontario found itself in a situation where it was spending at a level higher than the other provinces; the federal government then set a ceiling.

I mentioned it a number of times, and some of my colleagues also said so after travelling across Canada with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development during the social program reform—the famous Canada health and social transfer—that when funding for health, education and social assistance was combined, the government used the opportunity to cut the accessibility to employment insurance, which was known as unemployment insurance at the time. A number of provinces, the Atlantic provinces in particular, said that they would have preferred the federal government give them money to provide health care.

However, the province of Quebec maintained, “you recognize us as a distinct society, as a distinct province, so let us keep our taxes so that we can respect the spirit and the letter of the constitution in matters of health”. This idea was never greeted favourably.

Even the constitution scares this government. They do not respect its spirit. The member who spoke before me said, “yes, but since we are spending so much money, the federal government should have its say”.

What he should have said, and what would be more realistic, is that the government should ensure its visibility in health and other fields. Yet, we see the federal health department putting out ads on all sorts of topics, even erectile dysfunction—I see this brings smiles to the faces of other members—in a field that does not concern it; it is paying for ads simply to give the federal government some visibility.