60 years ago on April 20, Prime Minister Jean Lesage made public a historic agreement with the federal government aimed in particular at the recovery of tax points by the province, thus providing Quebec with greater autonomy. While Quebec has been denouncing the federal-provincial fiscal imbalance for a very long time, why not repeat the autonomist feat of 1964? Are we the masters of our own home in Canada?
You should know that in order to support its war effort, the federal government asked the provinces in 1941 to temporarily cede personal and corporate income tax areas to it, in exchange for financial compensation. The provinces accepted in 1942, including Quebec under Adélard Godbout. But what was supposed to be temporary has taken on the appearance of permanence1.
Using its spending power, the federal government was able, in particular, to create numerous joint programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. These were programs co-funded by Ottawa, but administered by the provinces.
Duplessis reestablished the provincial personal income tax in 1954. Lesage went even further. In April 1964, at the insistence of Quebec, the government of Canada offered the provinces to withdraw from certain federal-provincial programs concerning in particular hospital care and social assistance, in exchange for compensation. This is what we will call theopt out.
Lesage withdrew Quebec from 29 joint programs with tax compensation, while the other provinces preferred to continue with the joint programs.
Furthermore, instead of accepting the public pension plan proposed by the federal government based on the principle of distribution pay as you go, Quebec demonstrated in March 1964 the superiority of its capitalization plan allowing, thanks to the accumulation of funds, the establishment of the Caisse de dépôt et placement. Other aspects of the agreement notably concerned tax sharing between the provinces and Ottawa, family allowances for young people aged 16 to 17 and student loans2.
Political boiling
All of Quebec was in full political turmoil in 1964. Quebec demanded with vigor, leadership and courage a fairer place and greater autonomy within the Canadian Confederation, and separatism, as they said at the time, was growing. arrow. Federal-provincial relations in the spring of 1964 had reached a serious level of crisis to such an extent that Lesage refused to participate in the joint press briefing with the Canadian Prime Minister at the end of the conference, on April 2, 1964.3.
The federal government under Lester B. Pearson also recognized the principle of equality of the two founding peoples. He had just set up the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism based on this principle of equality. Pearson, in the minority, also needed Quebec to remain in power and sought the support of the province regarding the patriation of the Constitution and the constitutional amendment formula Fulton Favreau 4.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau whistled the end of recess: no more madness! The flexibility of the federal government in the face of Quebec’s demands, seen in its eyes as a weakness detrimental to federalism and Canadian identity, will likely have encouraged it to plunge into the political arena with Pelletier and Marchand in 1965. 5.
He saw the special status of Quebec as the “antechamber of separatism”6. Trudeau made his political fortune in Canada with the idea of putting Quebec in its place. The principle of the equality of the two founding peoples has long since died in Canada.
PHOTO REAL ST-JEAN, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Pierre Elliott Trudeau in October 1965
The federal spending power has become, over the decades, a real tool for building the Canadian nation, allowing Ottawa to stimulate citizens’ sense of belonging to the Canadian state. 7. Today we are talking about Canadian health transfers (TCS) and social program transfers (TCPS).
More recently, we will note the federal dental insurance and drug insurance programs as well as federal intentions in the area of housing. However, health services and social services fall within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. The autonomist solution for Quebec would involve an improbable increased liberation of the fiscal space occupied by the federal government and the control of the federal spending power. This debate has continued since the Second World War. There is here a head-on collision between two distinct national wills.
No, we are not masters of our own country in this country.
1. Commission on fiscal imbalance, historical context, Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2002, pp. 27-32
2. My prime ministers, Claude Morin, Éditions Boréal, 1991, pp. 140-143
3. Jacques Parizeau, volume 1, The Crusader, Pierre Duchesne, Éditions QuébecAmérique, 2001 p. 349
4. Claude Morin, op. cit, p.160
5. Pierre Duchesne, op. cit., p.350
6. Claude Morin, op. cit., p.183
7) “The Federal Spending Power in Canada: Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying?” », Hamish Telford, Publius: The Journal of FederalismVolume 33, Issue 1, Winter 2003, Pages 23-44
What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue
reference: www.lapresse.ca