|
"THE JUST FEDERATION"
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS TO
THE CHAMBRE
DE COMMERCE DE TROIS-RIVIÈRES
TROIS-RIVIÈRES, QUEBEC
APRIL 21, 1997
I have called this speech "The just federation", and I'm going to say
to you today more or less the same thing that I said to the Calgary Chamber of
Commerce on April 4. It is important for Canadian unity to say the same thing
everywhere in the country, and I am prepared to demonstrate throughout the
country that Canada is a just federation, as much for Quebecers as for
Albertans.
Our federation is founded on sharing and
solidarity. Helping one another out at difficult times, encouraging one
another's initiatives while sharing the same objectives of well-being and
prosperity, makes Canada much more than the sum of its components. And, by
staying together, Quebecers and Albertans will mutually guarantee a better
future.
The vast majority of Canadians believe that we
have accomplished something exceptional together, reflecting the values that
inspire our society individually and collectively. Canadians are not alone in
thinking that, because Canada represents an incomparable human ideal for many
populations in the world.
My speech today is concerned with fairness
between Canada's provinces and regions. I believe that we have a fair
federation, and I intend to show you why. It is also a federation that is
constantly evolving, and we should always be looking for ways to improve and
strengthen it. We must not become blinded by interregional jealousies to the
advantages Canada has to offer.
Debates about fairness in Canada are as old as
our federation; perhaps they are inevitable in a country so strongly committed
to the ideal of sharing. An opinion poll last October found that only 30% of
Canadians believe the federal government treats all provinces equally. Polls
have shown that Canadians living outside Quebec think that we are treated better
than the other provinces, while Quebecers think that Ontario is treated best.
These are serious concerns -- concerns which, as Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs with special responsibility for Canadian unity, I feel I must address
openly.
Interregional jealousy is inherent to
federations. But we in Canada are in a unique situation: we are a federation
threatened with break-up, because we are faced with a separatist ideology which
promotes suspicion, division and envy between citizens. When one group of MPs
arrives in the Parliament of Canada with the sole mandate of promoting the
specific interests of their own region, this encourages other regions to elect
MPs who, in turn, try to put their regional interests above all others. We thus
lose any sense of a national opposition committed to defending the interests of
Canada as a whole. All major federal political parties must be capable of
balancing different regional interests. Otherwise, interregional jealousies will
continue to escalate, driven by egocentric lobbies. It is essential to our
country's future that our spirit of sharing and solidarity overcome these
jealousies.
If our country dissolved into ten inward-looking
republics, we would no longer enjoy the tremendous advantages we have by being
together. Specifically, in most provinces, the social safety net would be
substantially weakened, making living conditions very unequal from one region to
another. The solidarity that unites us today would disintegrate.
Internationally, a united Canada, with its
prestige and its network of embassies, is one of the greatest gateways there is.
Canada's status as the largest trading partner of the United States has allowed
us to negotiate NAFTA to our advantage. It is because we are together that we
are members of the G7. It is because we are together that we are members of both
the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, and can thus reach more easily 980
million human beings with whom we are dealing more and more. It is because we
share this country with British Columbia that we, Quebecers, can be members of
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (APEC), which Canada is chairing
this year. You know how much that helps us to break into Asian markets, which
are currently the most flourishing. As residents of Trois-Rivières, you are
members of APEC, because you share this great country with your fellow citizens
in Vancouver. A number of your businesses took part in the Team Canada mission
in January. If any region's economy depends largely on international markets, it
is yours, whether it be in the pulp and paper sector, lumber, aluminum, or
magnesium.
Give me one good reason that you should deprive
yourselves of that assistance. Why vote for parties like the Bloc and the PQ,
which want to deprive us of that assistance?
These are the advantages we have acquired
together, which we would lose if Canada were to break up. Thus, the Canadian
federation is far from being a zero-sum game. Each province has its own
strengths and identity, which together add up to a strong and diverse country;
each province benefits in some way from the greatness and richness of the whole.
Take the example of Alberta, the wealthiest
province in per-capita terms. In the 1930s, our grandparents helped Alberta,
which was even more affected by the Great Depression than we were. Today, it is
Alberta that is contributing to the equalization payments made to a number of
other provinces, including Quebec. Albertans know, however, that their specific
strength is more limited than the Canadian whole, and that the global market can
sometimes work against them. Indeed, as recently as 1986-87, Alberta received
$419 million under the Fiscal Stabilization Program because of a year-over-year
decline in its revenues -- the second province to benefit from this program, the
first being British Columbia. That is what Canada is all about: an insurance
policy of solidarity that helps our economy and promotes investor confidence.
Perhaps that solidarity is most evident at times
of tragedy, when, like any family, we band together. One can certainly think of
last year's Saguenay tragedy. But let us also remember the Edmonton tornado of
1987.
Interprovincial fairness
How do Canadians think our sense of sharing
should shape the way our federation works? Well, according to a 1995 Canadian
Policy Research Networks' study, only 10% of Canadians believe that government
spending on poorer regions should be decreased or eliminated, while 60% believe
that Canadians have a right to expect a minimum level of service wherever they
live. An October 1996 CROP & Insight poll revealed that 70% to 80% of
Canadians across the country like the fact that the federal system permits
Canadians to share wealth between provinces.
As one of the Fathers of Confederation --
Georges-Étienne Cartier -- said, our federation was founded on the
"kindred interest and sympathies" of our different communities. And as
Queen's University professor Thomas Courchene has argued, the roots of the idea
of equalization can be seen at the time of the British North America Act, in,
for example, the special grants then accorded to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
because of their specific fiscal needs.
A key advance in interregional fairness was made
in 1937. That year, the Rowell-Sirois Commission recommended the arrangements
for federal transfers be formalized in a system of "national adjustment
grants" to the poorest provinces. In 1957, Canada adopted a formal
equalization program on the basis of this principle. In 1982, the principle of
equalization was deemed sufficiently important to be enshrined in section 36 of
the Constitution, "to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient
revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at
reasonably comparable levels of taxation."
We have achieved a great deal together, and that
is where our attention should be focussed, rather than on interregional
jealousies.
Interregional jealousies in the 1990s
You ought to listen to Question Period in the
House of Commons sometimes, because, from the Government benches, the show going
on in front of us is pretty pathetic. Day after day, Bloc members stand up and
present Quebec as a minority under siege by a hostile and insensitive majority.
The Bloc leaders repeatedly depict Quebec as the systematic victim of injustices
by the federal government. And then, Reform MPs stand up and depict Quebec, on
the contrary, as a spoiled brat living off the rest of the country, especially
the Western provinces.
For example, look how they dealt with the
difficult issue of the plight of Canadian Airlines. The Bloc leaders alleged
that everything was being done to save the company because it is headquartered
in Calgary, at the expense, naturally, of Montreal-based Air Canada. Reform
said, on the contrary, that we were indifferent to Canadian Airlines, whereas we
would certainly have "flown" to Air Canada's assistance.
In other words, the Bloc members want only one
airline for two countries, while Reformers oppose any and all business
subsidies, except for Canadian Airlines. So they sit there beside one another in
a kind of perpetual one-upmanship of jealousy.
Imagine I am Preston Manning...
It's important that you hear what's being said in
Western Canada, and that you understand that there are forces of jealousy at
work there too, even though the grievances expressed may sometimes contain an
element of truth. Because I'm not saying that the grievances are all unfounded.
I'm not saying that the federal government has always, since the beginning of
Confederation, made decisions that were fair for everyone. What I am saying,
however, is that there has not been systematic discrimination against any one
province or region. While some of the claims by the West and Quebec may be
founded, no one is being picked on, and Quebecers are neither the victims nor
the spoiled brats of the federation. In either case, interregional jealousies
are taking up too much room in our debates about fairness.
Let's imagine two scenarios: one by the Reform
Party, one by the Bloc. In the first, as Reform Party leader Preston Manning, I
complain that -- and I quote -- "Under the current equalization form [...]
the net effect of it is that you've got about three provinces carrying
seven", in other words, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are propping
up the less wealthy provinces, through equalization. Still as Mr. Manning, I
denounce the fact that the Government of Canada is abandoning the West, a region
it doesn't understand. That, and I quote Mr. Manning again, "About the only
time the government recognizes British Columbia or Alberta is when it comes time
to extract money", in other words when times are bad, the British Columbia
and Alberta economies are left to fend for themselves, but when times are good,
they are exploited for the benefit of Eastern and Central Canada.
So, what's the real story? Are Alberta and
British Columbia "carrying" the poorer provinces, as Preston Manning
said recently in Winnipeg? Let's start with equalization. Equalization payments
are strictly calculated on the basis of formulas agreed on by the partners of
the federation. Basically, the amount a province could raise at national average
tax rates is compared with a representative standard (based on the fiscal
capacities of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia). If
a province's total revenue-raising ability falls short of this standard, its per
capita revenues are raised to the standard level through federal equalization
payments.
Taken out of context, the figures involved might
seem unfair. For example, in 1996-97, Newfoundlanders received, on average,
$2,520 per person in major cash and tax federal transfers, compared with $1,469,
on average, for every Quebecer and $816, on average, for every Albertan. But put
these figures in context: Alberta will top Canada's GDP-per-capita tables with
$33,353 for 1997, while Newfoundland's per-capita GDP will be $17,785, twice as
low as Alberta's; and yet, Newfoundlanders will receive only $1,704 per capita
more in federal transfers.
What would be unfair to Newfoundlanders,
Quebecers, and Canadians in the other beneficiary provinces, would be if federal
equalization did not exist.
The same is true for the Canada Health and Social
Transfer, which replaced the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs
Financing with a single envelope. Is it unfair, as Mr. Manning suggests? Can it
be improved? Well, in restructuring it, we took note of suggestions from various
provincial governments about how to make it more equitable. As a result, each
province's allocation of funding will be gradually adjusted to more closely
reflect the provincial distribution of population. For example, we have set
fiscal year 2002-03 as the benchmark for halving per-capita disparities.
The Government of Canada is not neglecting the
interests of Alberta or British Columbia, contrary to what Mr. Manning is
implying. The West has long benefitted from many regional development measures,
such as grain transportation subsidies, funds for branch-line subsidies, and
funds for hopper car purchases. And, as I mentioned earlier, the first two
provinces to receive funding under the Fiscal Stabilization Program were B.C.
and Alberta. Various federal government initiatives have benefitted and still
benefit the Western provinces, whether they are in the form of tax relief,
multilateral trade negotiations, or otherwise. Only last month, we settled the
issue of fair funding for immigrants, which was especially important to British
Columbia. This is an excellent example of our step-by-step approach to resolving
regional grievances and was, as Premier Clark observed, "a victory for
British Columbia and a victory for Canada."
Imagine I am Gilles Duceppe...
Now that I've addressed the grievances of Mr.
Manning and Western Canada, let's turn to the second scenario. Imagine, for a
moment, that I am Gilles Duceppe, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois; make that
superhuman leap of the imagination! I'll tell you that the real reason that
Quebec is less wealthy than the Canadian average is that the decisions made by
Ottawa systematically go against Quebec. Read Ensemble le défi, ça nous
réussit, the working document of the Bloc's 1997 Congress: all the evidence is
right there. In the first part, you'll read how, over the past three decades,
the federal government has taken a number of "historic" decisions
which have had negative repercussions on the Quebec economy.
Keep on reading, and you'll see how the
distribution of federal government spending is unfair to Quebec. Yes, Quebec
really is the victim of systematic discrimination by the Anglophone majority
against its Francophone province.
Well, I can't take much more of being Gilles
Duceppe, so let me go back to being Stéphane Dion! Let's take a closer look at
those so-called historic, anti-Quebec decisions, according to the Bloc leaders.
The so-called "historic" decisions of
the federal government
The Borden line
The Bloc document claims that the 1963 decision
to establish the Borden line favoured the development of refineries in Ontario,
to the detriment of Quebec. It should be remembered that the Borden line was
established to help create a domestic oil industry by establishing a market for
Western Canadian crude oil. All refineries west of the Ottawa Valley were
required to purchase crude oil from Western Canadian sources, at higher than
international prices. Quebec, far from being discriminated against, was allowed
to continue to import crude oil at the lower, international price, thus giving
Montreal refineries a clear competitive advantage.
When the international price of oil surpassed the
domestic price for the first time in 1970, concerns about the accessibility of
international sources of oil developed. In response, a pipeline was extended
between Sarnia and Montreal to ensure Quebec access to crude oil. The Borden
line was abolished in 1973. Some Montreal oil refineries were closed down in the
1970s and 1980s, it is true, but not because of the Borden line; the same thing
happened elsewhere, as a result of economic factors, especially the oil crisis,
which significantly diminished demand.
The Auto Pact
The Bloc alleges that the Auto Pact concluded
with the United States in 1965 concentrated automobile production in Ontario, to
the detriment of Quebec. What it neglects to mention is that the Auto Pact does
not stipulate where producers must locate facilities; it simply provides a
general framework to encourage production in Canada, without favouring one
region more than another. The federal government has no control over U.S.
economic geography or the independent locational decisions of the private
sector, let alone the fact that Detroit, the "motor city", is located
in close proximity to the southern Ontario border, rather than that of Quebec.
It is incorrect to say that Ontario's benefitting
from the Auto Pact implies that Quebec has somehow suffered. Positive economic
developments in one province are not a detriment to other provinces. As well,
two points need to be made. First of all, had there been no Auto Pact,
Canada-wide automobile prices would have been higher and there would have been a
much smaller Canadian auto industry. This would have been detrimental to all
Canadian consumers, including those in Quebec. Second, automotive exports
accounted for the largest share (30%) of Canadian exports to the U.S. in 1996,
and the economic benefits are not exclusive to Ontario: GM's Ste-Thérèse
facility (which will reportedly be the beneficiary of new GM investment of
several hundred million dollars over the next five years) is an excellent
example, as is the flourishing Quebec auto parts industry.
Air transport
Still according to the Bloc document, the 1986
decision of the federal government to cease forcing foreign air carriers to
serve Mirabel in order to gain access to Toronto impacted negatively on Quebec.
The measure originally imposed on foreign air carriers to serve Mirabel in order
to gain access to Toronto was actually counter-productive, because it was
driving interested carriers away from not only Montreal but from Canada as a
whole. Major international air carriers do not want this type of barrier to
entry. They want to choose where to serve on the basis of their market studies.
Rather than insisting that a particular airport must be served, government and
local leaders must demonstrate to carriers that service is both attractive and
potentially profitable.
As for the operation, management and development
of airports, the federal government has been turning over these responsibilities
to local authorities, which are in a better position to respond to the specific
needs of the airport and the communities they serve. Although both the federal
government and the local authorities can make projections about air traffic, no
one can guarantee those numbers. The level of activity is determined by users
and the travelling public. Over the past four years, Aéroports de Montréal has
invested $140 million in capital works, and over the next five years, it plans
to spend another $190 million, which will create some 800 jobs.
The rail industry
Again according to the Bloc document, the
Government of Canada went out of its way to favour rail transport in the West,
while allowing Quebec's sector to dwindle and die.
Restructuring of the rail transport industry has
been made necessary, in the interest of all Canadians, to meet increased
competition both from the U.S. and from other forms of transportation.
Incidentally, Eastern Canada is not the only region where rail lines have had to
be abandoned; it has happened in British Columbia as well.
Privatization has meant that CN is now subject to
the rules of the market, as is CP. With its current restructuring, CN is
positioning itself for a future of long-term growth as a strong, Montreal-based
transportation company.
Now let's look at the transportation industry as
a whole. Since Canada's earliest history, the Government has invested billions
of dollars to build transportation infrastructure throughout the country. This
has been very important in expanding the Canadian economy, in particular the
Quebec manufacturing sector. Although the railway was a vital transportation
link to the West, Quebec had an alternative: the St. Lawrence Seaway. In 1959,
the Government of Canada invested $320 million on the five locks of the
Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the Seaway, approximately 85% of which went to
the four largest locks, which are located in Quebec. Further expenditures were
made in cutting channels, moving islands, and building and managing bridges. In
fact, the federal government still subsidizes the Jacques Cartier and Champlain
Bridges in Montreal, to the tune of $40 million a year.
If the Bloc followed its own reasoning, it would
find it unfair that the West doesn't get its fair share of spending for
developing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Not very logical, is it?!
Decisions by the Chrétien government
The Bloc's document also criticizes a number of
decisions by the Chrétien government as hurting Quebec's economy.
National securities commission
The document's claim that a national securities
commission would remove a large part of the financial centre of Montreal is
simply not true.
A Canadian Securities Commission would be a
voluntary organization; the Government of Quebec would not be obliged to
participate. This national commission would work in cooperation with the
securities commissions of non-participating provinces. Quebec-based companies
wishing to raise capital elsewhere in Canada would benefit, because they would
only have to apply once instead of 11 times outside of Quebec. Quebec capital
markets and businesses, therefore, stand to benefit from the establishment of a
national commission, even if their provincial government did not wish to
participate.
Coast Guard Services
Another of the Bloc's claims is that new fees for
Canadian Coast Guard services is a decision that would hurt the competitiveness
of the St. Lawrence ports, especially Montreal.
It should be borne in mind that the 1995 federal
budget committed the Canadian Coast Guard to a system of cost recovery for
services such as aids to navigation and ice-breaking. An economic impact study
commissioned by the federal government concluded that the average impact over
the next two fiscal years would be minimal, representing only 0.09% of the value
of commodities shipped and 1.3% of transportation costs.
Fisheries and Oceans Minister Fred Mifflin
responded on March 20th, 1997, to the impact study and announced changes to the
fee structure, moving towards fees based on the direct costs of providing
services rather than on revenue targets. The Minister also committed to working
closely with industry partners to establish principles to guide regional fee
structures and service levels. The introduction of ice-breaking fees was
deferred until 1998-99, thus further lessening the impact on regions such as
Quebec which are reliant on such services. It should be remembered that the
whole point of cost-recovery fees is to decrease the burden on Canada's
taxpayers, while continuing to ensure the safe and efficient operation of
Canada's waterways.
Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL)
The Bloc document claims that Atomic Energy of
Canada's (AECL's) decision to move 26 positions from Montreal to Mississauga
could undermine the former's position as a centre of nuclear expertise.
Moving 26 AECL positions from Montreal to
Mississauga is part of an overall internal restructuring geared to making Canada
the world leader in the nuclear reactor field. Will this hurt Quebec's nuclear
industry? Not at all. In fact, Quebec industry benefits to the tune of some $100
million to $150 million on average from each CANDU reactor sale abroad.
Therefore, it is in Quebec's interests that AECL operate as competitively as
possible.
Federal spending
The second part of the Bloc's document denounces
an imbalance in federal government spending which is never in Quebec's favour.
It claims there is a shortfall in "structural" spending and a surplus
in "compensatory" spending. The Bloc asserts that these two different
types of spending have different consequences for the economic and industrial
structure, and that, even with the "compensatory" surplus it receives,
Quebec still loses out.
What the document neglects to mention is that
federal "compensatory" spending in the form of equalization payments
to Quebec does not come with strings attached, and the Quebec government is free
to use these monies in any way it sees fit, including on structural investments
such as R&D. The flexibility of our federal system thus gives it a
completely free rein to pursue its own objectives.
The Bloc's document also curiously neglects to
give the overall picture, which shows that Quebec receives assistance as a
province that is currently less wealthy than the national average. In 1994, the
latest year for which data are available, federal spending in Quebec stood at
24.5%, whereas Quebecers provided 21.4% of the Government of Canada's revenues.
(Provincial Economic Accounts: 1961-95, Statistics Canada, 1996).
So-called "structural" spending
The Bloc's document qualifies expenditures on
goods and services and investment expenditures as "structural".
Calling current federal expenditures on goods and services
"structural" spending is spurious. Current expenditures are
consumption, not investment, and do not provide a foundation for long-term
economic growth or long-term job creation.
Current federal expenditures vary depending on
the structure of each provincial economy; they are not equally divided by each
province's share of population. The Bloc is complaining that Quebec received
only 20% of federal goods and services spending in 1994. In British Columbia,
for example, those expenditures were 8.8% in 1994, according to the latest
available data, whereas the province's share of the population was 12.7%. Nova
Scotia receives more than its population share (6.8% of federal expenditures and
3.2% of population), largely due to naval defence spending in that province. Its
apparent surplus stems from logic and efficiency, not favouritism.
Investment expenditures
Turning to federal investment expenditures, the
Bloc's document claims that Quebec has received only 18.6%. The Bloc has
obviously used figures that serve its purposes. If we look at the Provincial
Economic Accounts, it's quite a different story: we find that Quebec benefited
from 22.5% of total federal investment expenditures in 1994 -- the latest
available data -- which is closer to its share of the population (24.7%).
Ontario received 34.6% of federal investment expenditures in 1994, while it
accounted for 37.4% of the population. So it cannot be said that Quebec is being
discriminated against.
If we look at federal investment here in central
Quebec between 1984 and 1995, for example, the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, which is currently headed by my colleague Martin Cauchon,
spent around $161.5 million on 685 projects. The Government of Canada is an
important partner in the region, which is home to the following strategic
economic and institutional activity sectors, among others: the Institut de
recherche sur l'hydrogène (R&D); the only lactulose production plant in
North America, the Canlac Corporation (pharmaceuticals); Disque Amérique Inc.;
and the CDM laminés Inc plant. And that's not counting the impact of the $400
million that the presence of 12 federal organizations in the region represents.
R&D spending
The Bloc leader is telling whoever will listen
that ever since statistics have existed, Quebec has never received its fair
share of federal research and development spending. And yet, according to
Statistics Canada data, the proportion of federal R&D spending in Quebec
rose from 19% in 1984-1985 to 23.8% in 1994-1995, which is close to our
demographic weight (24.7%) and greater than our proportion of the Canadian
economy (22.4%). Those data include laboratories in the National Capital Region,
such as the National Research Council, which has a non-profit, auxiliary
vocation of assisting research throughout the country. Quebec has greatly
benefitted from federal government initiatives in the past 20 years to
decentralize R&D facilities. In terms only of spending distributed on a
regional basis, Quebec's share is even more substantial: Quebec businesses
receive 40.2% of federal R&D grants and 42.8% of federal R&D contracts,
while Quebec universities receive 27.6% of funding to Canadian universities. In
addition, some 70% of Technology Partnerships Canada investments have gone to
Quebec so far, a clear indication that the federal government is not ignoring
leading-edge sectors in Quebec. (Source: Science Statistics Service Bulletin,
Statistics Canada, Volume 20, No. 8, pages 1 to 5.) Public service
The Bloc claims in its document that Quebec has
an "inequity" of more than 20,000 federal jobs, because only 19% of
federal government employees are based in Quebec.
That the federal government has a smaller
presence in Quebec than in other provinces is not evidence of injustice toward
our province. It is simply because our provincial government has concluded
specific agreements to take over certain areas which are looked after by the
federal government elsewhere in the country. For example, Quebec has its own
provincial police force; it collects its own provincial individual income tax;
it selects its own immigrants and receives them and integrates them into
society. That at least partly explains why Quebec's public service represents at
least 30% of the country's entire provincial public sector.
When the Canada-Quebec Labour Market agreement in
principle comes into effect, some one thousand federal employees will become
provincial employees. This will lower the percentage of federal employees in
Quebec. According to the Bloc leaders' logic, this will be a bad thing!
Quebecers' proportion of 19% of the federal
government employees is thus far from an example of discrimination against
Quebec. The situation in fact reflects the specific status Quebec has acquired.
And, speaking of structural spending, if you take into account government
business enterprises that generate such spending, then 23.7% of all those jobs
are in Quebec.
The claims of unfairness by the Bloc leaders are
inconsistent and, more often than not, are based on partial data which serve the
separatist interests they are defending.
Fairness does not mean uniformity. The Government
of Canada cannot distribute spending among the provinces on an equal per-capita
basis; that would be irrational and inefficient. That would be confusing justice
with levelling. According to the logic that the Bloc leaders apply to Quebec,
namely that "fair share" must always be equal to our province's
demographic weight, or about one quarter of federal spending, we should give
Saskatchewan the equivalent of its demographic weight in fisheries spending!
That's clearly illogical.
Whatever grievances a particular province may
have, fairness and solidarity remain the fundamental principles guiding the
evolution of our federation. Not a single Canadian province can complain that it
is a victim of neglect, and Quebec is neither the poor relation nor the spoiled
child of the federation.
Conclusion
I hope there will never be an Ontario Bloc or a
Bloc from any other province in the House of Commons. I hope there will never
again be another Bloc from anywhere in Canada. I don't want to hear them demand
in the House that the Technology Partnerships Canada program, the lion's share
of which currently goes to Quebec, be distributed equally to businesses in all
the provinces on the basis of their percentage of the population, regardless of
considerations of logic or efficiency. Because that's where the Bloc's jealousy
is leading.
Canada is not an exercise in accounting. Our
federation is a family of provinces, territories and populations which share the
values of justice, solidarity and fairness. Quebecers are generous people. The
calculating mind set of the Bloc leaders dishonours us and is not in keeping
with our true values.
Canada is a fair federation, and together,
united, we have the best chance of making it even better. By staying together
and continuing to improve this federation, Quebecers and their fellow citizens
throughout Canada will collectively and individually acquire the means to take
on the major challenges of the next century.
Check against delivery.
|
