Yvan Loubier

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his applause. But I would rather he held off until l am done with my presentation, in case he did not feel like applauding at all by then.

I also thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his excellent presentation. I will not repeat all the points he made about the government's mismanagement. He has covered the issue extensively. A government can hardly have the necessary credibility to impose new, stricter control rules on directors of public corporations when it is faced with all these scandals.

On the face of it, my colleagues and myself think that Bill C-57 is a good bill. It responds to a need. In 2001, if memory serves, this House passed Bill S-11, which dealt precisely with clarity and new rules for proper management and accountability by both shareholders and directors of public corporations.

At the time, we omitted to include certain financial institutions, such as banks, cooperative credit associations and insurance companies, as part of the federally chartered institutions. Now, Bill C-57 is completing the process by reforming the governance of federally chartered institutions. But it is not making any changes to monitoring rules.

I was listening to my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party who, together with other Conservative and Bloc members, has worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Finance to develop these new rules. I heard him suggest that this bill would shield us against Enron and WorldCom-type scandals. I do not think so, because the new rules govern the accountability of directors. No new rules were imposed to monitor the statements and corporations concerned. If there is one improvement that should be made following the work done at the finance committee, it is in that respect that it should be made. As far as we are concerned, we are not shielded in any way against Enron or WorldCom-type scandals.

The bill has its good points. It also relaxes the regulations on the exchange of information and on proxies, which is a very onerous procedure for banks, particularly cooperative credit associations and insurance companies. Furthermore, companies and shareholders are now allowed to do something they could not do before, which is communicate electronically and exchange information on the Internet. We must adapt to the new era of communication and this bill does just that.

The process by which information is disclosed to policyholders is also strengthened. I think this is a good thing. By doing so, we are making the underwriting of public companies more transparent.

The bill also attempts to increase director liability. We have questions about this. We will ask them during consideration in the Standing Committee on Finance and before the expert witnesses we intend to call. Since such bills are extremely technical, we need to call upon people in the field who worked under the old provisions and who may have an opinion about the new ones.

With regard to director liability, when such directors are taken to court, for example, there is a new defence. Previously, there was the defence of acting in good faith. A director was able to say, “Given what we were told, I made my decisions according to the information I had available”. Now, we want to adopt a new type of defence for directors, which is called due diligence.

We do not know just how far this new defence for directors can go. I think that it would be worthwhile to examine this issue in greater depth, particularly since there are strong hints of scandals every week. We saw it in Quebec, among other places, with the Norbourg affair. In order to protect shareholders, we need much more than a potentially meaningless concept, such as due diligence. We need directors who are liable and audit methods that prevent scandals similar to those we have seen in recent years and now.

These involve insider transactions, on which we can never be too vigilant or severe. This is a provision that could improve our control over such offences.

Then there is the matter of public holder requirement, which requires institutions with equity holdings between $1 billion and $5 billion to make at least 35% of their voting shares available for trading on the public stock exchange. We have a number of questions on exemptions from this provision as it relates to public financial institutions. Among other things, we are going to clarify the situation with the cooperatives, but it does seem a positive change.

If we have to work on this bill—as we will do with all possible seriousness in the Standing Committee on Finance—there are some questions we will assign importance to, including the need for clarifications on the amendments relating to insider trading. Will this really help to catch the guilty parties?

As well, we have some questions on the consequences of broadening the possible defences for directors, as I have said, under this new concept of due diligence rather than the former good faith. Not that the latter is being done away with, but due diligence is being added as a defence when directors come before the courts.

We also have some questions on the consequences of opening up the criteria for application for exemption from the requirement to float 35% of voting shares on a stock exchange. That was our objection four years ago in connection with Bill S-11 and it still is today: the bill gives no consideration whatsoever to small shareholders. We will try to improve this bill so that small shareholders have a say in decisions made by the directors and will be better treated than they are at present. It is, for instance, my intention to personally invite Mr. Michaud, dubbed “the Robin Hood of banking”, who is engaged in a pitched battle for those rights.

We are in favour of the bill in principle at second reading. We will be making some improvements and some clarifications during its examination in the Standing Committee on Finance.

Like my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, when he said that, as a public administrator, the government should set itself strict guidelines on liability, I remembered a debate that we have been having since 1994 and that may well reach its apex in the coming weeks, during an extraordinary session of the Standing Committee on Finance. Furthermore, we will have a debate this evening on a motion by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to abolish various corporate income tax regulations as they relate to the tax treaty with Barbados.

The state must be viewed as a big democratic company. This big democratic company has millions of shareholders: the taxpayers and citizens of Quebec and Canada. They are all shareholders in the state. If we draw a parallel between the public and democratic company called Canada and the regulations before us today, we see that some directors are not subject to the same rules that we want to impose upon the directors of crown corporations under Bill C-57. I am thinking, for example, of individuals who are in good position to apply double standards when it comes to calls for strict guidelines, liability, accountability, the elimination of conflicts of interest, and so forth. Some people who have worked for the Canadian state for a long time have used their status to get the governor in council and cabinet to amend tax laws and regulations so they can fill their pockets, as we say in Quebec. This was the case with the former finance minister and current Prime Minister.

I am often told, “Your approach is overly aggressive. You are always on the Prime Minister's back because of his shipping company, but it no longer belongs to him. It belongs to his children”. It is still a family business. And this is not aggression, but rather merely concern that all taxpayers be treated fairly.

What shareholders and company directors are being asked to do in this bill, the Prime Minister has not required of himself since 1994, not since he was named Minister of Finance and not since he became Prime Minister. He changed the rules of the game for international shipping corporations operating in international waters. The headquarters of Canada Steamship Lines International has been in Barbados since 1994, in other words since the tax regulations and related legislation were changed. At that time, an exception was made in the tax treaty with Barbados so that Canada Steamship Lines International would not have to pay taxes to Canada. The current Prime Minister changed the rules, taking advantage of his position as finance minister.

I would like to return to my example of Quebec, which is a large democratic corporation in which everyone is a shareholder. The Prime Minister has managed to save more than $100 million in taxes since 1998, thanks to provisions that he himself had passed. It was he who introduced Bill C-28 in 1998. And in 1994 there was the change to the tax regulations.

So he built a gilded cage for himself in order to fleece the shareholders in the democratic country of Canada. As a result, he has not paid more than $100 million in taxes since 1998. That hurts all the other shareholders, to draw a connection with Bill C-57. When they do not pay their taxes—he and other corporations that are structured similarly, that is to say, a consortium of shipping companies or other corporations headquartered in countries considered tax havens, especially Barbados—it is all the other shareholders who pay for the poorer returns of the democratic corporation known as Canada.

This evening we will have an opportunity to remind ourselves of this with the motion of my colleague from Portneuf. We are going to have a special session in November when we will fully expose the machinations of the current Prime Minister at the time he was Minister of Finance and built a gilded cage for himself. He made sure that Canada Steamship Lines and other similar companies, his friends, could take advantage of these tax loopholes. As a result, we are still paying taxes to Canada while he fleeced the Government of Canada out of about $100 million.

We are speaking about the responsibility of all citizens of this country. All the citizens are shareholders or company directors and should feel a certain amount of responsibility. For starters, when a person is Prime Minister and was finance minister for years, he or she should set an example. I think he set the wrong example. And we are going to prove it over the next few weeks.

I repeat that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle. However, we are going to make some improvements to it. In regard to the other matter of the large democratic corporation in which we are all shareholders, we will be keeping an eye out and will shed light on the allegations that I have made.

[Gasoline Prices, September 28th, 2005]

Since the Minister of Finance's decisions keep on getting reversed, I would ask the real finance minister, in other words the Prime Minister, why he would miss the opportunity to put a surtax on oil and gas company profits in order to return that money to where it ought to have stayed all along, i.e. the taxpayers' pockets?

[Gasoline Prices, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois can be implemented without being impossibly costly for the government. All that is needed is some courage and concern for the public interest.

Does the government not think that a surtax of $500 million on the astronomical profits of the oil and gas companies would be far more intelligent than repeating the $250 million in tax cuts they were given in 2003?

[Transfer payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive solution involves not only these two solutions, but also a review of equalization, reflecting the rule of 10 and the transfer of tax points in order to permit the governments of the provinces and Quebec to fund their activities independently.

Is the Minister of Finance capable of understanding this reality, in light of the comments by Minister Fournier, who says that the provinces are having difficulty maintaining a complete range of services for their residents?

[Transfer payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Standing Committee on Finance recommends an end to the piecemeal agreements and an increase in transfers for education and social programs, like health, to 25%.

Does the Minister of Finance realize that piecemeal agreements resolve nothing and, on the contrary, perpetuate the fiscal imbalance? Could he at least admit for once that the solution involves these two measures, which are the first move in a frontal attack on the fiscal imbalance?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, even with the policies the government has implemented, we are in a situation where ad hoc agreements of this nature need to end.

If correcting the fiscal imbalance would provide the governments of Quebec and the provinces with enough funding, then they would have enough money to transfer these provincial resources to the municipalities for infrastructure, for example.

Just by restoring the federal government's contribution to social programs and education to 25%, as was done for health last September, would give the provinces an additional $11 billion. That money would prevent the governments of Quebec and the provinces from being choked by responsibilities such as health, post-secondary education and help for families and the poor. They would be able to make their own funding available for infrastructure.

Unfortunately, such is not the case. The current measures do not go far enough. The fiscal capacity of the federal government is much too great. Over the next six years, it will have accumulated a surplus of roughly $100 billion. This has to change. The quality of services provided to the public depends on it.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, he is rerunning the same old tape he often plays, just like his colleagues.

We have barely concluded a four-month Canada-wide consultation. From Halifax to Victoria, via Quebec City, Toronto and Regina, the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, which I had the honour of chairing, heard the same thing everywhere: the current financial relationship between the federal government and the provinces cannot continue. It is impossible to plan for the future when the federal government is generating such astronomical surpluses each year in relation to its responsibilities to the public, and most of the provinces, with the obvious exception of Alberta, do not have enough money to provide the public with the fundamental services set out in the Constitution.

These days, even Mr. McGuinty in Ontario is fighting just as hard as Quebec has fought for the past three or four years. This battle began under Bernard Landry, who was, to some extent, the father of the Séguin commission. How is it that everyone, even Ontario, recognizes there is a fiscal imbalance, agrees on the need to correct it and is aware of the lack of resources required to provide services to the public, while the Liberals, on the other hand, are still wondering if the fiscal imbalance even exists?

I would be careful if I were the hon. member because he comes from Ontario. If the Ontario government thinks there is an injustice and wants to make changes, the hon. member should watch himself during the future election because he will be held to account.

On the matter of the wording of the bill, a senior official appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance on Monday evening. He said the government had no obligation in the bill. In other words, it can do what it wants. The word “may” is not so insignificant or innocent. The government knows full well that with a bill like this, it can do what it wants. It can take initiatives during the year, get to the end of the year, not have the necessary surplus and completely thwart its so-called promises. I did not say that, a senior official from the Treasury Board did.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois had hoped for an opportunity to introduce some subamendments to the bill before the House. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure prevents us from doing so. Once the official opposition puts forward any subamendments, we are prevented from doing likewise on the same clauses. This is unfortunate.

I understand the Conservative Party for having taken this opportunity to put forward amendments to Bill C-48 that are consistent with its convictions. However, we wanted to introduce a subamendment to the bill, on respect for the areas of provincial—and Quebec—jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, everything in Bill C-48 falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Unfortunately, we were unable to put forward this subamendment.

We would also have liked to continue the battle that we, as a political party, have waged in the Standing Committee on Finance. In other words, we wanted to include the main priorities of Quebeckers in the bill. Unfortunately, we could not do that, either.

We take issue with the following aspect of this bill. The NDP is patting itself on the back, saying it concluded the agreement of the century with the Liberal government. I do not understand the NDP. If it says it has this power, I do not understand why it has abandoned the unemployed. EI is not one of the concerns the NDP presented and expressed in Bill C-48.

The NDP has boasted for years about fighting to improve EI, which excludes 60% of the unemployed who would normally be entitled to it, were it not for such inhumane criteria.

From the start, the government considers the unemployed as potential con artists. Benefits have been slashed for people hit by unemployment, a problem for thousands of families in Quebec and Canada. The NDP has abandoned the unemployed. We have not abandoned them. During each stage of Bill C-48, we have done everything possible to reintroduce such consideration for the unemployed into the bill. Not so the NDP.

As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, all parties in opposition believe it exists. The sub-committee I have the honour of chairing has just tabled a report. That sub-committee travelled the length and breadth of Canada to hear people's testimony. They all expressed their concerns about the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments and the inability of the governments of Quebec and the provinces to provide basic services like health to their populations. Regardless of last September's agreement, they still lack the funds to be able to provide health systems that operate to their full potential.

As for post-secondary education, the provinces are faced with under-funding, since they simply cannot afford to invest in post-secondary education, although in a way investing in our youth means investing in our future.

Then there is the problem of disadvantaged families. In the provinces—and in Quebec—the funds are not there for lifting entire families out of poverty. None of these considerations exists in the bill, nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance, nothing to improve employment insurance either. Even if those lefties keep saying something needs to be done about EI, the unemployed have been abandoned.

We in the Bloc Québécois have not abandoned them. Nor have we abandoned the key priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians. In fact, in the rest of Canada we heard considerable concerns expressed about the fiscal imbalance and the under-funding of essential public services. We have not given up on this, If the NDP has, so be it. History will judge them, and they will get their come-uppance in the next election.

As for the rest of us, we will continue to fight and to push for reforms. Our basic premise is consistency. The first budget was bad, and the second is a fool's bargain. The NDP is boasting of its great gains. I will read an excerpt from the bill.

This analysis was confirmed last Monday evening when we studied Bill C-48. A senior Treasury Board official was there. He told us flat out that this bill did not commit the federal government at all and the NDP had signed a fool's bargain. The government has not made any commitments to any of the areas in which it promised to invest. It has not really made any commitments to social housing, or education, or foreign aid, or environmental programs.

I will read some excerpts which the senior Treasury Board official emphasized: The government has not made any commitments. The government “may” invest in it. So the government has not made any firm commitments. I will read some excerpts from subclause 1(1) of Bill C-48. It says: “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments —”

That does not mean he is going to make them. It does not say that he must make them or that he will make them. It says that he may make these payments.

It is the same thing in subclause 1(2): “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2006-2007, make payments—”

We know that “may make” does not necessarily mean that he will make. There are also a lot of conditions surrounding the end of year surpluses. The government can decide to do anything else that it likes during the financial year knowing that it will have surpluses at the end of the year. It can take any initiatives at all other than those in Bill C-48. This is a real fool's bargain. Nothing is gained here. There is no commitment on the part of the government to any of these things.

In English and French, the bill says the same thing. It is “may” not “must” and there is no commitment. A real fool's bargain.

The NDP has stood the world on its head, saying that it was good, it had negotiated some things and we had not done our work very well. To that I say it has not done anything if one looks at this agreement. When there is an agreement and a bill says “may make payments”, that means the government can do anything it wants.

For all these reasons, in committee, we worked hard—which cannot be said for the other political parties—to amend the bill, to consider everyone who was forgotten in this budget bill, and by that we mean the unemployed and the sick, among others. Given the rate at which spending in health care is increasing—at the rate of approximately 7%—they will not recover the time or the resources lost in order to get the system to operate as it should. In fact, the current Prime Minister made savage cuts in this area when he was finance minister.

They have also forgotten students, who are dealing with an education system that has been underfunded for years. In Quebec alone, it would take an investment of $1 billion a year for the next five years to catch up.

We in the Bloc have tried to get these amounts and move things along. However, the government and the other opposition parties are not interested in supporting amendments to improve EI, to help the unemployed—about 60% are excluded at the moment—and to help people who are sick and to help the students.

We also tried to get international aid increased to 0.7% of the GDP. With the amounts involved at the moment, we will need 25 years to reach this objective. We tried to help farmers in Quebec and Canada, who are facing a very serious crisis. However, the government was not interested in supporting our amendments and suggestions to improve this bill and make a firmer commitment than the one providing that the government “may”.

In conclusion, it is a fool's bargain. The amendments we had proposed were rejected. The bill is still totally unacceptable. The NDP has no reason to boast about this agreement. There is no commitment on the government side. The people understand.

[Transfer Payments, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, even with his explanations, the Minister of Finance cannot convince any provincial premier or finance minister. So much for those explanations.

Will the Minister of Finance face the facts, recognize the fiscal imbalance and agree to increase his cash transfers for post-secondary education and social programs to 25%, over four years, as he agreed to do for health and as recommended by the subcommittee in its report?

[Transfer Payments, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance tabled its report confirming, based on the opinion of experts and many witnesses heard from coast to coast, that there is indeed a fiscal imbalance in Canada.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit what everyone recognizes, namely that there is indeed a fiscal imbalance favouring the federal government, and that this fiscal imbalance must be corrected to ensure a better balance in the distribution of financial resources?