The Fair Federation
(March 9, 2001)

          Mr. Chrétien's government is offering to Mr. Landry's new government its full collaboration in order to help Quebecers continually improve their quality of life in Canada. As the government of all Canadians, we have a duty to work with all provincial governments, whatever their political orientation.

          But the federal government also has a duty not to leave unanswered any unfair comment on Canada. Our conduct will not change: we will react to any unfair statements coming from Premier Landry's government, just as we did when Mr. Bouchard held that office. We will answer politely, but clearly.

          In the weeks before he assumed the leadership of his party, Mr. Bernard Landry unflaggingly reiterated the same discourse. It can be summed up in two propositions. First, Mr. Landry alleges that Quebec is one nation and Canada is another nation. Second, since nations only maintain relations of coldly calculated self-interest, according to Mr. Landry, the Quebec nation, being smaller than the Canadian nation, inevitably gets the short end of the stick within Canada. In Mr. Landry's own words: "[...] il est immanquable que la nation qui contrôle se serve d'abord." "[...] it is inevitable that the nation that is in control serve itself first." [translation] (Speech by Bernard Landry, Hull, February 26, 2001).

1. Quebec receives its fair share

          I will begin by refuting Mr. Landry's second proposition. Quebecers are not victims of discrimination.

          There are many advantages in belonging to Canada, but I will examine this issue solely from the angle proposed by Mr. Landry: comparing the federal government's spending in Quebec and the revenues it draws from this province.

          Let's look at the figures. The relevant data from Statistics Canada's provincial economic accounts are very consistent from year to year. So the most recent available data, from 1998, are completely representative. In that year, Quebecers received 24.2% of total federal spending. Well, Quebec's population is exactly 24.2% of the total Canadian population.

          And yet, Quebecers' contribution to federal revenues is not 24.2%. It is 20.6%. Quebecers thus receive more than they contribute. Is that fair? Yes, it is completely fair, because one must take into account that Quebec's contribution to Canada's GDP is 21.8 %. All in all, Quebec is contributing in accordance with the size of its economy and receiving in accordance with the size of its population.

          It is true that these figures would change somewhat if Quebecers were not the only Canadians to enjoy a special federal income tax abatement under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. But that abatement affects federal spending in Quebec to the same extent that it affects Quebecers' contribution to federal revenues. Without that special abatement, their contribution to revenues would increase to 21.7%, and their share of spending would increase to 25.3%. In other words, the surplus of spending over revenues would remain the same.

          Does this mean that Quebec is a "poor" province, as Mr. Landry regularly claims? Not at all. It simply means that Quebec is slightly less wealthy than the Canadian average. The four Atlantic provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the three territories enjoy a per-capita surplus of federal expenditures over revenues that is higher than Quebec's.

          Does that mean that Quebecers receive 24.2% of every item in the federal budget? Obviously not, no more than Saskatchewanians receive the equivalent of their population share in federal fisheries and oceans spending! Quebecers receive much more than their population share of some items in the federal budget (half of equalization payments, for example), and less of others.

          It is not surprising Mr. Landry is focussing on those items where Quebec's figures are below its population share. It must be noted, however, that these items represent only 23.9% of total federal spending. Those items for which Quebec's share is lower than Quebecers' contribution to federal revenues represent only 4.1% of total federal spending.

          Mr. Landry complains-as did Mr. Bouchard before him, and Mr. Parizeau before Mr. Bouchard (this is an old story)-that Quebecers' share of federal research and development spending is not equivalent to their population share. The latest available data (1997-1998) show that Quebecers receive 21.2% of this spending. But this includes spending undertaken in the National Capital Region, in research laboratories that, for reasons of efficiency, have to be located there. All modern governments concentrate their R&D spending in their capital cities, including the Government of Quebec. With respect to federal R&D spending outside the National Capital Region, Quebec's share is 26.8%.

          As for goods and services, Quebec suppliers receive 21.5% of federal spending, which is roughly the size of the Quebec economy within Canada. Since the purpose of these expenditures is to ensure the operation of government rather than to redistribute wealth, it is normal that the regional distribution of this spending should resemble the regional distribution of economic activity.

          Now take business subsidies. Quebec businesses get 16.5% of total spending. Mr. Landry is mistaken in seeing some sort of scandal here. It must be said that business subsidies are not a large part of the federal budget, only 2.6%. Part of this spending goes to help farmers who do not have marketing boards, that is, mostly Western farmers. In fact, most Quebec farmers are helped by consumers throughout Canada through marketing board quotas, and this kind of assistance does not appear in the federal budget.

          Now, take spending on national defence. Quebec's share is 17.3%. But these data include spending abroad, which matters to all Canadians. For spending within Canada, Quebec's share is 21.5%. Most of the provinces receive, like Quebec, a share of this spending that is lower than their population share. There is certainly nothing scandalous about the fact that a significant part of defence spending is concentrated in Nova Scotia. Did we not fight two world wars on the Atlantic front?

          Mr. Landry claims that the number of federal civil servants in Quebec is insufficient. In fact, 23.1% of all federal public servants in Canada work in Quebec, and that proportion would be even higher if the Quebec government did not assume some responsibilities (such as police services) that most other provinces prefer to leave to the federal government.

          And I could go on and on in the same vein. For example, Mr. Landry states that the Quebec side of the National Capital Region gets only 1% of federal purchases of goods and services in the region. Such a statement is completely at odds with reality. The headquarters of many of the largest federal departments are located on the Quebec side, and 27.6% of federal public servants in the National Capital Region work in Quebec. Public servants' salaries are one of the largest components of federal purchases of goods and services.

2. Quebecers are also Canadians

          In short, Quebec is neither the spoiled child nor the victim of the federation. It receives its fair share of federal spending as a province somewhat less wealthy than the Canadian average.

          Indeed, how could it be otherwise? What evil force could make Quebec a victim of systematic discrimination in Canada? We know the answer of Mr. Landry and his party: "it is inevitable that the nation that is in control serve itself first." [translation]

          In their universe, one cannot belong to more than one nation. Since we Quebecers are part of a nation of our own, we cannot be part of the Canadian nation. They add that two different nations, united within the same state, maintain relations only of self-interest, not of solidarity.

          Mr. Landry's universe is a sad one. If we were to accept it, why would English-speaking Quebecers, or Aboriginals living in Quebec, accept to have a confident link of solidarity with French-speaking Quebecers? Wouldn't it be "inevitable" that in Quebec too, "the nation that is in control serve itself first?" [translation]

          Fortunately, Mr. Landry is wrong. We can have more than one identity. To be at the same time a Quebecer and a Canadian is not at all a contradiction, but a wonderful complementarity. In this global world, which increasingly brings us into contact with people of such varied cultures and backgrounds, it is a strength to have more than one identity, never a weakness. Identities are something one should accumulate, never subtract.

          Obviously, Quebec is a nation in the French sense of the word, that is, a collectivity with its own sense of history and cultural references. But this culture includes our Canadian dimension, our Canadian identity. It includes all the aspects of the country that we have built with other Canadians, all the solidarity that links us to them.

          To renounce our Canadian identity would be to give up a significant part of what makes us Quebecers. We are coming to realize it more and more and this awareness strengthens our attachment to the solidarity and the principle of caring that are the very foundations of the Canadian ideal.

Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/default.asp?Language=E&page=archive&sub=openletters&doc=20010309_e.htm