Pierre Paquette

[Taxation, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, France St-Hilaire, Vice President--Research of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, recently declared, and I quote: “—the federal surplus is likely to growconsiderably--, while the provinces’ fiscal situation isconsidered 'precarious'.”

Does the finance minister not understand that it is always the same citizen who pays and who has had enough of paying Ottawa for programs he or she should not be paying Ottawa for if Ottawa got out of the areas of provincial jurisdiction on which it is encroaching, and if it freed up the necessary tax room so that provinces could assume their own responsibilities.

[Taxation, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance is not aware of this, but Canada's provinces are heading for a total deficit of $10 billion by the end of the fiscal year in March 2004, while the federal government continues to show a sizeable surplus.

While the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs floats in the calm waters of the federal surplus, the provinces are swimming for their lives because they must provide services to the public and they lack resources.

Is the Minister of Finance finally going to return to terra firma and notice the fiscal imbalance, as experienced right now by the provinces?

[Greater Joliette Chamber of Commerce, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 6, the greater Joliette chamber of commerce will host a dinner to celebrate its 110th years of work to foster the region's economic, civil and social well-being and the development of its resources.

Since the beginning, the chamber of commerce has striven to study, lead and promote, protect and develop the area's economic interests.

In recognition of this commitment, past directors and residents interested in the area's social and economic progress will be invited to this celebration.

The dinner will be a time to remember the past and see archival photos. There will also be an address on the history and role of the chamber of commerce.

With over one hundred years of history behind it, the greater Joliette chamber of commerce can continue to be proud of its efforts to ensure the area reaches its full potential under extraordinary leadership. May the greater Joliette chamber of commerce enjoy another one hundred years as a lever for growth for the Lanaudière region. Happy 110th anniversary.

[Taxation, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with behaviour such as this denial of the existence of a fiscal imbalance, the minister and the federal government are maintaining a good image while putting all the pressure on the Government of Quebec and of the provinces. These have no choice; they have to deliver services, whether or not there is any money.

Does the minister share the opinion of Yves Séguin, that the federal government is taking the provinces for fools?

[Taxation, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with the meeting of finance ministers only a few days away, the Quebec minister has again demonstrated the great harm being done to government finances in Quebec, and has pointed out that this situation could deteriorate still further if the federal government does not pay out all the money for health services that it promised.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that there is fiscal imbalance in Canada, that this situation needs to be corrected, and that the solution does not lie in such formulas as “Well, if there is a big enough surplus, I will hand over a bit of money, but if not, you will just have to fend for yourselves”?

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since February 2003, certain Liberals have been telling us that the problem in health has been solved because an arrangement has been reached between the provincial premiers and the federal government. I would remind hon. members that this was accomplished because we had a knife held to our throats.

Does the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot think it is normal for the present finance minister to make use of thinly disguised blackmail, telling us that if the surplus exceeds $3 billion, then the promised $2 billion will go to the provinces for health services? If it is under that $3 billion figure, tough luck, the provinces will have to scrape up the money somewhere, perhaps through cuts in other areas such as the municipalities, in order to be able to deliver health services. Does he find this normal?

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that Quebec's current finance minister is Mr. Séguin. He wrote this report at the request of the Parti Quebecois government. This report, which clearly proves that there is a fiscal imbalance, has received broad support throughout Quebec.

The only ones who disagree are the federal Liberals. Liberals in Quebec unfortunately march to the same drummer. As a result, we will not be told tales. The federal government has managed to eliminate its deficit by offloading it on to the provinces. It still is.

For example, here is a quote from the Canadian Medical Association report. This is not the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois speaking. This comes from a brief tabled by the association before the Standing Committee on Finance. Here is what it says:

Instead of reinvesting in public health, the federal government is planning to reduce departmental spending in this sector. According to the main estimates, expenditures on public health in current dollars will decrease in 2005-06, to their lowest level in ten years.

The current government is continuing to pass the buck on to the provinces and Quebec. It has the money to put things right, but it has chosen to make the debt and income tax cuts its priorities.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raises this point. Indeed, Quebec offloaded some of its responsibilities onto the municipalities. However, it was not the Parti Quebecois that started this, but Claude Ryan, when he was minister of municipal affairs.

It was the Quebec Liberals who started this practice. They had no choice, since the federal government had cut transfer payments to the provinces. Look at the example for next year: the current finance minister, Mr. Séguin, announced that there was a shortfall of $3 billion. He said he did not want to touch health or education. We could not agree more.

That leaves $9 billion where cuts can be made to make up for the $3 billion shortfall. That is impossible. The timing is good, since the fiscal imbalance, or the portion paid to Quebec, is $2.5 billion. If the federal government were to transfer the tax points to the provinces, Quebec in particular, we would not be having financial difficulties

All the provinces in Canada are having financial difficulties, except Alberta. Ontario is running a deficit and Quebec will probably run one next year. The federal Liberal government and the future prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, are mostly to blame.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the start that I shall be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am pleased to speak to this motion by the Canadian Alliance, a motion that contains many things. Some are good and some are bad. It gives us an opportunity to debate an issue that is essential for the Bloc Quebecois and for all Quebeckers, namely, the fiscal imbalance.

I would like to read the motion again:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should initiate immediate discussions with the provinces and territories to provide municipalities with a portion of the federal gas tax.

Clearly, what is good about this motion is that the Alliance, like the Bloc Quebecois, recognizes that there is a fiscal imbalance. The provinces and cities have needs which can never be met the way things are going, because of the provinces' and Quebec's lack of financial resources.

On the other hand, the first bad thing about the Alliance motion is that it invites the federal government to trample on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It does say “to provide municipalities with a portion of the federal gas tax”, perhaps after discussions with the provinces and territories. We are totally opposed to this direct link between the federal and municipal authorities which bypasses the provinces and Quebec. It runs counter to the Constitution of Canada. We seem to be almost the only ones left defending this document in the House. Section 92 is very clear that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction.

Secondly, if we were to support this motion we would be playing the Liberals' game, in particular, that of the future prime minister and member for LaSalle—Émard, who is the father of the fiscal imbalance. Many times in his speeches, he has broached the idea of direct payments to municipalities—especially the big cities—out of federal money.

Thirdly, the Bloc Quebecois is going to oppose this motion because Quebec is not and never will be a conduit from the federal government to the municipalities and all of Quebec.

Consequently, we will be voting against this motion. We recognize, like the Canadian Alliance, that we are dealing with a situation where the federal government has too many resources in relation to its responsibilities. It should indeed transfer the gasoline tax and tax points to rectify this situation.

The motion should have called for discussions to be held to correct the fiscal imbalance. Repatriating a portion of the gasoline tax would perhaps ensure that the provinces have the means to help municipalities meet their needs and the needs of those who live there. Had this motion been amended accordingly, we would have had no problem voting in favour of it.

As I was saying, this is quite clearly a dangerous motion. The speech by the secretary of state confirmed this impression when he said that they were going to vote in favour of the motion and that it is quite normal for the federal government to send money directly to the municipalities.

This motion by the Canadian Alliance is a bit surprising, because it plays into the hands of the Liberals. It plays into the hands of the future prime minister who, on several occasions, showed his desire to create an alliance with major cities. This must be publically condemned. He said this again recently in Vancouver.

I have other quotes. I will only give a few, but some date back to the spring of 2003, others to this fall, meaning September 2003. Here is the latest quote from September 2003:

I said that we are going to provide Canadian municipalities with a portion of the federal gas tax. But what is really important is that we work with municipal and provincial governments to set the common consensus.

Here the future prime minister is putting himself on the same level as the provinces and municipalities. He continues:

To do this, we will have to sit down and look at the timing and the size of the tax transfer.

This from the member for LaSalle—Émard, the future prime minister. As I was saying, we find this unacceptable because it is inconsistent and would encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction.

When we ask the federal government not to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, especially Quebec's, it is not just to defend the 1867 Constitution. In fact, we want to get rid of it. But there has to be consistency on an economic and social level.

When the federal government deals directly with the municipalities, as with all sorts of other public or parapublic institutions, it follows its own agenda that is based on Canada's vision of things, not Quebec's.

When we are talking about infrastructure, especially municipal infrastructure, this has economic and social repercussions. It all has to be integrated into a general plan approved by the Government of Quebec, through the National Assembly, and reflecting Quebec's vision of development.

Not only is this inconsistent, but it also detrimental to other mandates of Quebec and the provinces. For instance, if they go with this alliance that the future prime minister is talking about between the federal government and Canada's big cities, including two major cities in Quebec most likely, this would—if it goes through, which it will not—be detrimental to the regions of Quebec.

If this goes through, the regions of Quebec will inevitably pay the price. The money that will be distributed directly by the federal government, in accordance with Canada's vision, will not be transferred to the Government of Quebec, which would have seen that the money went to the regions, in accordance with Quebec's vision.

As I said, it would have been a good thing if the motion had directly addressed remedying the fiscal imbalance. It is, moreover, noteworthy that the 1.5 cent gasoline tax inaugurated by the future prime minister of Canada, the member for LaSalle—Émard, is a perfect example of just that imbalance. It is a totally pointless tax, having been put in place by the February 27, 1995 budget in order to eliminate the deficit. That deficit was eliminated at least seven years ago on the federal level.

Thanks to this tax, the federal government has been able to help itself to between $1 billion and $1.2 billion of Quebec taxpayers' money. That money could have been put to other uses, either by those taxpayers themselves or by being put back into Quebec's tax base. While this is part of the fiscal imbalance, it is not the whole story.

Looking at the way the federal government's revenues and expenditures have evolved over the years, even if we go back only to 2001, we can see that those revenues have risen 53% since the Liberals came to power. From 1993 to 2001, there was a 53% increase in the government's revenues, along with a 3% reduction in expenditures. Essentially, that reduction is in two main areas: transfer payments to the provinces and the employment insurance fund, the contents of which have been quite simply diverted away from the unemployed, employers and the workers paying into it.

If I compare Quebec's program expenditures over the same period, these rose by 16%. Of that increase, 71% went to health services. At the same time, the federal government was cutting back its transfer payments, as I have already pointed out. Cuts in the order of $24 billion were made, and one-third of that was for Quebec, although we represent only one-quarter of the population of Canada.

This means that the federal government, having withdrawn in order to solve its own financial problems, only shoulders 14¢ of the health care dollar invested in Quebec, and 8¢ of the education dollar, despite the existence of a surplus, year after year. For example, last year, we were told the surplus would be about $4 billion. In the end, the surplus was $10.4 billion, exactly what the Bloc Quebecois had predicted. As I have said many times, our resources are limited compared to those of the Department of Finance. Thus, it is not an error on the part of the current finance minister or the former finance minister; it is a deliberate attempt to avoid a public debate on these surpluses.

This year, the Minister of Finance announced one day that the surplus would be $3 billion, but another day said it would be around $5 billion. He does this to avoid correcting the fiscal imbalance. Given the situation—and Quebeckers are dealing with it—it is obvious that the future prime minister does not want to correct the situation despite the consensus in Quebec concerning the existence of a fiscal imbalance. Then, Quebeckers ask: When the foundation is cracking, do you fool around patching the walls? Because until the crack in the foundation is repaired, the walls will keep falling apart.

The choice of the Bloc Quebecois and of many Quebeckers is sovereignty for Quebec—that is, thoroughly repairing the foundation in order to make the walls solid—so that we can develop properly.

[Library and Archives of Canada Act, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the motions by the Canadian Alliance concerning the removal of everything pertaining to copyright in Bill C-36.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is already looking at this issue. It is extremely complex, as we know, particularly when we want to be able to take into account both the rights of the heirs of the authors in question and those of researchers or members of the general public to have access to these works.

It is completely logical to remove any references to copyright from Bill C-36. Let us hope the heritage committee will succeed in striking a fair balance in this complex matter.

I believe that Canadian Alliance Motions Nos. 12 and 20 address this and therefore have our support. As for Motion No. 17, however, I believe we will vote against it.

That being said, this whole debate is extremely important. A number of my colleagues have taken the opportunity to point out how opposed to Bill C-36 the Bloc Quebecois is, particularly the issue of merging the Library and the Archives, which have two different missions.

The hon. member for Laval Centre has suggested I look up the dictionary definitions of “archives” and “library”. I think that reading those definitions will provide a clear understanding of the fact that their mandates are different and are not such that they can be combined, as Bill C-36 seeks to do.

The definitions are from Le Petit Larousse , which I am sure all will agree is a totally reliable source.

The definition of “archives” given by this dictionary is: “Body of documents relating to the history of a city, a family etc, or those of a corporation, administration and the like”. “Archives” is also defined as “a location in which such documents are stored”. We can clearly see that archives have to do with a certain type of document with a connection to a family or company, as well as certain historical documents.

The definition of “library” given in Le Petit Larousse is: “Location, room or institution, public or private, in which a collection of books, texts, manuscripts and the like are shelved and managed”. Hon. members can see that this is really connected with the printed word and not with documents that could be described as archival.

When we consider a land register, which records properties with buildings on them or under cultivation, with the names of owners, it is quite clear that this type of record has its place in an archive, but not at all in a library, according to the definitions in Le Petit Larousse .

Moreover, most of the industrialized nations have understood very well that these entities have two different mandates. In France, Germany, the United States and Belgium, these are separate entities, with their own administrations, which develop their own logics, since they are not the same.

I think that by merging the two, Bill C-36 creates a great deal of confusion, as much in terms of administration as of mandate. Whether it is the archivists or the librarians, one of these two professions will end up losing.

When I was general secretary of the CSN, I had the opportunity to manage staff. I have already been an employer. We had a records department and a library. When we hired a records clerk, an archivist if you will, we hired someone who was trained to be a records clerk, not a librarian. However, when we needed a librarian, we hired a technician in that speciality, or someone who had studied library science.

Two completely different kinds of training, work and mandate are involved, and Bill C-36 does not take this into account. If it is adopted—we hope it will not be—it will surely result in a loss, for one group or the other, of a fundamental mandate.

Why is the government seeking to combine the two mandates? This is a question that remains unanswered. It is no doubt for reasons having to do with what we could think of as economies of scale. But as far as the mandates of the National Archives and the National Library are concerned, are economies of scale really that important? Will the savings make up for the cost of losing one mandate or the other? I do not think it is appropriate to think in those terms.

Is the idea more to give the new institution a broad propaganda mandate, to promote the Canadian vision of history and culture? That is probably closer to the truth. We know full well that this is a debate that we had right here, during question period.

Like most Quebeckers, including the current Premier of Quebec, we in the Bloc Quebecois believe that Quebec is a nation with a culture of its own. But just recently the Minister of Canadian Heritage referred again to Canadian culture. For her, anything relating to Quebec's culture is in fact a regional aspect of the broader Canadian culture.

I think it is more in this perspective of building Canada according to the Canadian vision that Bill C-36 must be viewed. Especially since the bill expands the mandate of the new institution, Library and Archives of Canada, to include a reference to the interpretation of Canadian history.

There is great cause for concern there, because if there is one area in which diversity and complexity preclude any official interpretation or something of the sort it is that one. I would be curious to know how Canadian history would be interpreted under that mandate. Take Louis Riel for example.

I will tell members a story. I had opportunity to visit Charlottetown. They have a sort of Fathers of Confederation museum, where they outline how the Canadian Confederation came about. This kind of information is always interesting, but it was set in a clearly Canadian vision. For instance, I learned there that Louis Riel had played an important role in the creation of the province of Manitoba. But there was no mention anywhere of the fact that he was hanged for high treason. Is that the interpretation we will be given of this tragic chapter of our history?

There was also conscription, both in 1917 and during the second world war. Canadians and Quebeckers interpret this event completely differently. In this respect, which interpretation will be considered the right one? I can give another example, the War Measures Act of 1970. No matter how we try to look at this, surely our interpretation will be different.

This is extremely dangerous. One of our top sociologists, Guy Rocher, conducted a study with one of his colleagues, whose name I unfortunately forget, on the perspective found in the history books used by schools in Canada and Quebec. He was able to prove that this perspective was completely different, depending on whose it was, Quebec's or Canada's.

As a result, I think that this aspect should be totally eliminated from the mandates of the Library and Archives of Canada. This results in a reductionism that does not correspond to reality. History is constant evolving. Our interpretation of the past is constantly subject to change.

For example, our current view of the first nations is quite different from our view at turn of the century. We realized a number of things that might not have been so important back then. Values also change.

All this to say that this aspect must be totally eliminated. Overall, this legislation is not relevant. As a result, although we agree with some of the Canadian Alliance's motions, in the end, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-36.