Daniel Paillé

[Securities, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to revisiting the issue of Quebec's collecting the GST, the government wants to strip Quebeckers of another financial tool by establishing a single securities commission. Although participation would be voluntary, in reality it would mean the disappearance of the Autorité des marchés financiers and the transfer of Quebec's regulatory authority to Ontario.

Why is the Conservative government attacking Quebec's economic and financial autonomy?

[Tax Harmonization, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is the fifth member this week who has not understood our questions. That was not at all what we were talking about.

The $3.1 billion tax gift—75% of the pie—to the richest of the rich, is claimed by 7,985 people. We could almost name them in the House. Thus, 7,985 people receive a gift of $400,000 on average.

When will the government say enough is enough and tax the rich, the fat cats of the system?

[Tax Harmonization, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for 18 years the government has refused to pay the $2.2 billion to Quebec and has continued to shower the rich with gifts.

On page 353 of the budget, it announces a $4.1 billion gift in the form of a stock option deduction. In addition, “three-quarters of the aggregate value”...“was claimed by individuals earning more than $500,000”, for a total of $3.1 billion.

Why does the Minister of Finance not put an end to this tax immunity for the exorbitant compensation of executives?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in fact, during the tour of Quebec that we did to prepare for the budget, we told Quebeckers, who did not believe us, that Canada’s military spending, amounting to $20 to $25 billion per year, not counting equipment purchases, was the equivalent of one Olympic stadium per MP and per senator. Everyone in Quebec remembers the outrageous costs of the Olympic stadium, which is in Hochelaga riding, incidentally. Each of them would have one.

That is this government’s military spending, it is a government that has no idea where it is going with this kind of military operation. Social services, social and community housing and the homeless, need that kind of spending a lot more than the military follies of the present government.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, a wise old man once said that a smart person can act like a fool, but the reverse is not true.

Why did the fiscal imbalance come to the fore after Bloc members came to Ottawa? Simply because it was the Bloc that identified the fiscal imbalance with the help of the Quebec government. Ever since the Bloc has been here, its members have fought the fiscal imbalance fiercely on a daily basis. It still has not been settled. Some people acted as if they had dealt with it, but it has not been corrected.

In our opinion, the only way to deal with the fiscal imbalance between Canada and Quebec is to give Quebec full control over its powers, its taxes and its revenues. The only way to settle the fiscal imbalance is through sovereignty for Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to tell the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

Now that the Don Quixote of the NDP has spoken, let us get back to important matters. Our motion contains a number of elements, some of which I would like to speak to.

It says that the budget does not meet Quebec's needs or rather those of the Quebec government. I have been a part of that government before, and I know that the current situation of Quebec's finance minister must be unbearable, especially when a large chunk of his revenue comes from a sort of black box over which he has no control.

On December 24, 2008, the equalization formula was unilaterally capped, although it was a contract. At that time, the Government of Canada was coming out of an election campaign, and the Quebec government was in the midst of one. On December 24, a formula was unilaterally sent out whereby the contract had been amended. All that happened on December 24, proving that Santa Claus can sometimes be a real jerk.

In the fall of 2008, we said, just as the opposition did, that there would be a $1 billion loss. Ms. Jérôme-Forget, who was one of my colleagues at the National Assembly and the finance minister, said she was not told that $1 billion was being cut. She was on the campaign trail and, as a result, had limited information from her department.

What did she have to do? She had to admit that there had been a $1 billion loss for the Quebec government. That may have been what turned her off and ended her political career. The finance minister realized that Hydro-Québec, wholly owned by the Quebec government, and that Hydro One, wholly owned by the Ontario government, were not being treated equally. However, both companies produce, transport and distribute electricity. But because Hydro One transports and distributes under the guise of a corporation and pays dividends to its shareholder—the Ontario government— it does not fall into the same category. They say that Hydro One does not produce electricity. Where does it get it from? Surely not the sky. So, Ontario does indeed produce electricity.

The mere fact that Hydro One pays dividends as a company and Hydro-Québec pays them as a natural resources Crown corporation deprives the Government of Quebec of $250 million in income. This explains why we were recently told that the Government of Quebec was thinking of increasing hydro rates. But we realized that adding one dollar to the hydro rate meant approximately $0.50 less in equalization, while Hydro Ontario could do the same thing without any equalization penalties. This is a double standard. On January 21, 2009, 419 days ago, Ms. Jérôme-Forget said that she wanted the federal government to treat Quebec fairly and equitably and to rectify the accounting process for Hydro-Québec's revenues. On January 21, 2009, a letter was sent to the Minister of Finance. We have not received an answer since then.

My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, talked a lot about harmonization.

The National Assembly adopted a motion. The first equalization issue was the Government of Quebec. The second issue was the GST/QST harmonization. The motion was passed unanimously by the National Assembly.

At the time, it was $2.6 billion. What is Quebec's Minister of Finance doing now? He is looking at that and telling himself that $2.2 billion would maybe do the job. Meanwhile, $2.2 billion over 18 years, at 5% interest, would amount to $5.3 billion today if we had received the $2.2 billion in 1992. That is exactly, or close to, what British Columbia and Ontario will be getting because they harmonized their taxes last year. It is approximately the same amount, $2 billion, if we consider the $1 billion paid to the Maritimes 13 years ago. The Maritimes received $1 billion 13 years ago. That amount, invested at 5%, would be the equivalent of what Quebec is asking for today. If I were Quebec's Minister of Finance, I would not be claiming just $2.2 billion. I would be claiming $2.2 billion plus interest because this is the Government of Canada's debt to the Government of Quebec.

This is not for lack of negotiators. There have been five premiers and eight ministers of Finance in Quebec since then. The federal government has just always been stubborn.

A motion was unanimously passed in the National Assembly on March 31, 2009, but they could not care less.

The third point I would like to raise is the Canadian securities commission. There was another unanimous motion. Three issues, three unanimous motions in our legislature, the National Assembly of Quebec. One unanimous motion on January 15, 2009, called for the National Assembly to reiterate its firm opposition to the proposed Canada-wide securities commission.

What is the Government of Canada doing? It is talking about $150 million this year for a securities commission for which the bill has yet to be tabled in the House, and $11 million for transition costs. That is $161 million to create another structure on top of the Commission des valeurs du Québec, the Autorité des marchés financiers, and securities commissions across Quebec and Canada.

When the budget speech was given, I said that the government wanted to spend $8 million to create a commission to examine the commissions, to make sure there were not too many of them. Now they want to create a Canada-wide securities commission on top of the other securities commissions. We are talking about an expenditure of $161 million.

And yet we have jurisdiction. Why do they want this? Constitutional competence lies with the provinces and, what is more, the people are competent. What does a securities commission do? It regulates a business, the securities business. That means there are investors. Quebec investors, privately or collectively, apply in French to the Autorité des marchés financiers in Montreal. With this sort of change, where will they apply, and in what language? Who will respond to them? I assume it will probably be a call centre outside Canada, to cut costs. Who will respond to the investors, the issuers, the small, medium, large and very large companies that do business with the Autorité des marchés financiers? I have worked in this area, where business was done on almost a daily basis with the Autorité des marchés financiers. Who will do it? The third parties people use now, the law firms, notaries, accountants, the people being educated in the universities, where will they go to work? And in what language? Why?

The Autorité des marchés financiers works. Yes, there have been problems, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That much is clear.

That is why we are moving this motion. We have given a number of examples. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas will speak for the rest of the 20 minutes we have been allotted.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party would agree that, in the opinion of the House, Quebec's needs were not taken into consideration, because there were no commitments to allocate $2.2 billion to Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST, to provide the forestry industry with an assistance plan equivalent to that given to the automobile industry, to offer stimulus measures to the aeronautics industry, to meet Quebeckers’ expectations regarding the environment, and to enhance programs to assist the less fortunate in Quebec.

If the member agrees that the budget was not even worth voting on, how is it that the Liberal Party has allowed it to pass after saying it was against it? How is it that the Liberals have allowed such a budget to pass, when today they are tearing their hair out about it?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the parliamentary secretary. Apparently, he is watching television to see the effects of the budget. One only needs to take the three bridges in Montreal to see that $50 million over two years is close to nothing.

This morning, there were reports on polls in two papers. The government is still conducting polls—allow me that little flash of irony. The Canada Revenue Agency conducted a poll. In today's Le Droit, we read under the headline “What Economic Recovery Plan?” that 57% of Quebeckers do not know that there is a recovery plan, compared to 40% in the rest of Canada.

Why is there such a gap? Simply because we do not see ourselves in the recovery plan.

In La Presse Affaires, a headline reads “Federal Recovery Plan: Ontario and Quebec are the losers”. These two big provinces are the biggest losers because the government does not care about the industrial and manufacturing fabric of Canada, Ontario and Quebec.

I would like to know how my colleague on the committee understands these headlines.

[Taxation, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the conclusions of Kevin Page, our Parliamentary Budget Officer are clear: the government's projections are ridiculous. Drastic measures are necessary.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a surtax on the bonuses of business leaders, a surtax on taxpayers who earn over $150,000, and the elimination of the tax havens that help the banks get richer and make the government poorer.

Will the government finally listen to reason and act responsibly, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois?

[Taxation, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page delivered his definitive verdict this morning. The government underestimated its deficit by more than $20 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government should adopt the proposals that the Bloc Québécois has been making for weeks, to ask more from those who have more: oil companies, banks, taxpayers who earn over $150,000 and the recipients of outrageous bonuses.

When will the government realize that it can no longer favour the rich?