Yvan Loubier

[Privilege, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Chair. The problem is not one of understanding. Since the ways and means motion was tabled, I have been looking for the minister responsible. I am being sent from one minister to the next, from one department to the next, and no public servant can answer our questions on this ways and means motion. This has been going for eight days.

This is the first time that such a thing happens. Usually, we can find the public servant and, more importantly, the minister responsible.

If there is no violation of my privileges as a member of parliament--

[Privilege, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, please--

[Privilege, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is truly an attack on our privileges. In Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice , it says on page 50, and I quote:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively... and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their function.

It is impossible for me to discharge my function of Bloc Quebecois critic on finance, since I am not getting an answer from the government. We do not know which minister, department or officials are in charge. For the past eight days, we have not been able to get answers--

[Privilege, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to it.

Yesterday afternoon, there was a suggestion of the possibility of voting on this notice of ways and means motion. We were asked at that time, as members of this House, to vote on a kind of shapeless thing, a UFO, unidentified flying object. We were asked to vote on a motion whose ins and outs no one was able to explain to us.

According to Montpetit Marleau, we have privileges as members of this House. We have the right to know what we are voting on and to have replies to our questions from the ministers responsible or from public servants. We find ourselves in a situation where responses are not forthcoming and we are being threatened with a vote. This is clearly contempt of this House. Clearly, our privileges as members of parliament are being breached by this government. I am calling upon you for a ruling on this breach according to Montpetit-Marleau.

[Privilege, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are some strange goings-on in this parliament and a fortiori in this government.

On September 18 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled Notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 6. This was a notice of ways and means motion amending the Income Tax Act so as to allow taxpayers, and particularly the government, to better manage the money that government receives.

However, eight days after this notice of ways and means motion was tabled, we are still trying to find out which minister, which department and which officials are responsible for it.

When we ask the Minister of Finance who is responsible for this notice of ways and means motion, he refers us to the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

When we contact officials in the office of the secretary of state responsible for financial institutions, they are surprised and completely taken aback: it is the first time they have seen this notice of ways and means motion, and they refer us to the Department of Finance.

At the Department of Finance, we are told that it is the Minister of National Revenue, not the Minister of Finance, who is responsible. The Minister of National Revenue tells us it is the Minister of Finance.

Eight days after the notice of ways and means motion was tabled, we still do not know which minister is responsible for this important notice, the effect of which is to introduce new provisions for managing the billions of dollars received from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

Second, our efforts to obtain this information from departmental officials have not been any more successful. When we call the Department of Finance and speak to officials, we are told that this is not their responsibility but rather the responsibility of officials working for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. When we speak to officials working for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, we are told that department of revenue officials are responsible.

In short, after eight days, officials are still wondering which minister is responsible for Notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 6, which department is responsible for this notice of ways and means motion, and which official can provide any sort of answer to our questions regarding the billions of taxpayer dollars managed by the government.

[The Economy, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, instead of letting matters drift dangerously close to what looks more and more like an economic crisis, could the Minister of Finance not just this once show some leadership and tell us immediately what measures he intends to take to curb the economic slowdown, and help the thousands of workers who will be laid off in the weeks to come?

In short, he should drop his laissez-faire attitude, take action, and bring in a budget this fall. One is needed.

[The Economy, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a few days after the events of September 11, American authorities laid out a plan to curb the economic slowdown: $40 billion to be used for industry, including air transport, and for social transfers, defence and security.

Will the Minister of Finance, who as of now has access to a surplus topping $10 billion, stop watching the train go by while layoffs are announced right and left and the economy takes a tragic turn for thousands of workers?

[The Economy, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister, and now the Minister of Finance, justify these statements to the effect that the economy is in good shape, when we are hearing that Air Transat will be laying off 1,300 employees, that Air Canada will be laying off more than the 7,500 already let go, and that Pratt & Whitney is getting ready to slash its production? I think that it is time that he gave us a true picture of the situation and the measures he intends to take.

[The Economy, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Canadian economy was doing well, despite the events of September 11 in the United States and the slowdown in the North American economy.

How can the Prime Minister be so out of touch with reality, when the Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, is predicting zero or negative economic growth for the next six months?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before being interrupted for oral question period, we had certain reservations about the bill. These were threefold.

First of all, regulations are needed for certain matters that strike us as crucial, including the criteria for accreditation of Canadian or American individuals or companies, so that when CANPASS accreditation is refused, the reasons for that refusal are known and corrective action is taken in order to maintain healthy competition between Canadian and American companies in the same sector.

Second, we also have certain reservations about the minister's discretionary power in certain cases. It is a failing of the government that it always includes several provisions in a bill referring to the minister's discretion. At some point everything is up to the minister's discretion and this concerns us.

As for giving customs officers increased authority to open mail in the case of envelopes weighing 30 grams or more, we question the appropriateness of such a measure. Customs officers already have certain powers, but it would be excessive to open mail without an arrest warrant or serious doubts about the nature of a parcel. Even the Canadian Bar Association questions these stepped up measures.

Following discussions with the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for the economic development agency, it wanted us to have some assurances regarding the possibility of having regulations with the bill, especially when it is examined in committee or at least of our having a statement of principle or a political statement for certain parts of the bill. It will be especially important to have a larger picture than that of the bill in which we find incredible gaps that prevent our understanding things properly.

We got this assurance and I think we will watch how things develop because the Minister of National Revenue and minister responsible for economic development is not in the habit of saying just anything. We will therefore await further developments in the hope that the minister will provide the clarification we seek.

In principle, at this second reading stage my party is going to support this bill, but we will be waiting for developments from the minister responsible who, let us hope, will meet our expectations. If at the end of the process we are not satisfied with respect to the concerns we have mentioned throughout this speech, we would have to oppose the bill unless there are amendments.

So far, we are in support of the bill's principles at second reading because international trade could benefit. The administrative problems encountered by certain companies and individuals in conducting business with the United States in particular, could be reduced. This could be a positive thing in the circumstances.