Yvan Loubier

[Taxation, November 20th, 1996]

Speaking of deferred taxes, when the auditor at Consolidated Bathurst was asked "When will you pay your company's deferred taxes?", he replied "Never". Right now, deferred and accumulated taxes represent a total of $36 billion, 5 per cent of the Canadian GDP, and nobody in the finance department, starting with the minister himself, seems to be concerned.

Given the size of this tax expenditure and its unwarranted use by certain large corporations that are making a profit, will the Minister of Finance not admit that he should immediately issue rules so that one day these corporations will pay their fair share?

[Taxation, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too will have to accept the congratulations of the Minister of Finance. It must, however, be admitted that the official opposition does some good, as the minister admitted today.

But enough polite remarks directed at the Minister of Finance, for I have no congratulations for him. With all the resources at the disposal of the finance department, he could, in three years, have conducted the same in-depth study done by the Bloc Quebecois with its meagre resources and realized that he was wasting $3 billion a year in tax revenue.

[Taxation, November 20th, 1996]

Let us ignore him in any case.

[Securities, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the very least that can be said in all this is that the Minister of Finance is completely confused. The first project was for a Canadian securities commission that would replace all the provincial commissions.

Second, faced with mounting opposition to the project, they decided it would be optional. Then there were, in theory, not ten securities commissions but 11. This morning, in the newspaper, the minister said: "This could perhaps be cut down to two or three". This is just so much stalling around. It is what comes of not looking after your own affairs.

Since nobody in Quebec wants a Canadian securities commission, since opposition is growing in British Columbia and Alberta, and since there is a viable alternative to this commission known as the SEDAR system, now being developed and put in place by provincial commissions, why is the finance minister so bent on pushing ahead with this project, which would be devastating for the economy of Montreal?

[Securities, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the last Liberal report of the Standing Committee on Finance contains the following phrase, and I quote: "The Committee encourages the government to continue working with interested provinces in order to set up a Canadian securities commission" But, in this morning's papers, we learned that a number of provinces think the project is on the way out.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he confirm that his government is dropping the project to set up a Canadian securities commission, knowing that it is unanimously opposed by economic, financial and political circles in Montreal and throughout Quebec?

[Yitzhak Rabin, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to mark a sad event, namely the assassination a year ago of Israel's Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin, who was killed on November 4, 1995.

A winner of the Nobel peace prize, Mr. Rabin believed in the reconciliation of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and he worked hard to find ways to bring them closer to each other.

Despite his violent death, everyone hoped that the efforts to implement the peace plan in that region would be pursued. Unfortunately, we now fear the worse. Indeed, the behaviour of Mr. Rabin's successor at the head of the state of Israeli makes us wonder.

Today, on this sad anniversary, we can only hope that the values promoted through the peace process put forth by Messrs. Rabin and Arafat will prevail over the radicals that scorn democratic values and condone violence.

Today, the hope for a lasting peace must be revived by Mr. Rabin's memory.

[Committees Of The House, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition tabled a dissenting opinion, as an annex to the report of the Liberal majority. There are three basic

arguments supporting this dissenting opinion. The first one is that the official opposition refuses to let the federal government get involved in securities, an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments, including the Quebec government.

The Liberal majority report proposes the establishment of a national securities commission. We absolutely oppose such a measure, because it contravenes the Canadian constitution, the 1982 Constitution. The second argument is that it would deal a blow to Montreal's economy, since its most competent people in the fields of securities, management consulting, etc., would be transferred to Toronto, with all the financial consequences that could follow, particularly from an economic point of view.

We also oppose the recommendation to the effect that foreign banks interested in getting involved in the area of securities would have to ask the federal Minister of Finance to do so, even though this area comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

Finally, we oppose the Liberal majority recommendation to the effect that a federal consumer protection office should be established. We are certainly not opposed to consumer protection, but the government would create more overlap, duplication and inefficient schemes, since consumer protection initiatives such as the consumer protection bureau, privacy legislation, the Insurance Act, trust companies in Quebec, etc., already fulfil the mandate that would be given to a federal consumer protection office.

For all these reasons, the official opposition is asking the government to give up its project to create a national securities commission, to let the provinces look after consumer protection, since this area comes under their jurisdiction, and to let them decide whether to allow foreign broking subsidiaries to do business on their territory, since this also comes under their exclusive jurisdiction.

[The Role Of Government, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the minister to continue along the path he has begun toward more accountability and greater transparency in public administration. In particular, I would invite him to ensure that members of Parliament and ministers also have an obligation of accountability and transparency.

I would also invite him to keep the promises made by the Liberal government about revitalizing democracy. Too often in the past three years the impression has been that the public service and the federal administration are often being led by the mandarins, that the mandarins are often telling the ministers what to do, and the ministers are letting themselves be pushed around by these mandarins.

Revitalizing democracy, as the Liberals so well presented it during the last electoral campaign, means more transparency in the work of committees. This was not been the case in connection with the family trusts, particularly the transfer to the United States of two billion dollars, in which there was no transparency whatsoever, but rather a systematic camouflage operation. I think there is a good deal to be done in this area.

The question of revitalization of democracy, accountability and transparency raises the whole question of political party funding. We can boast of having a grassroots funding structure, but the major federal parties do not have that.

I would therefore invite the minister to continue along the path on which he has begun, so that accountability, transparency and revitalization of democracy will be made concrete, rather than remaining mere empty promises.

[The Quebec Socioeconomic Summit, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's socioeconomic summit opened last night in Montreal.

This summit brings hope to all those in Quebec who think that political, social and labour-management co-operation is essential to find solutions to the employment crisis.

This event is a fine example of the Quebec co-operation model that is unique not only to Canada but to all of North America. It shows Quebec's vitality and what makes us different as a people.

I take this opportunity to urge the federal government to support the initiatives that will arise from this summit, while respecting the Quebec government's jurisdiction.

To all the participants, including the summit's instigator, Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, we wish successful discussions and the best of luck.

[Federal Investments, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to lead the debate off track. We are talking about investments in federal government buildings, land, and rolling stock, and he is talking about specific projects. If he wants to play that game, 1,000 question periods would not be enough for him to get through all the investment projects in Ontario. That is the reality of the matter.

The federal government does Quebec out of $1.3 billion in procurement annually. Now we learn that Quebec is receiving far less than its share of federal government and crown corporation investments.

How was it that the Prime Minister was patting himself on the back over the weekend for his government's fine performance, when the federal government has had it in for Quebec for at least the last 15 years, depriving it of billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs? I would like him to explain that to me.