Daniel Paillé

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the opposition leader's speech and I did not hear him talk about something very important that appeared in both the throne speech and the budget speech.

I would like his opinion on one of the items that insults the rights of Quebeckers. I am talking about the Canadian securities commission. We know it insults the skills of university trained Quebeckers, it insults the skills of people at AMF, it goes against Government of Quebec policies and it goes against the unanimity of our National Assembly.

I would like the opposition leader to give us a clear answer on his party's position on the Canadian securities commission.

[Taxation, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with $5.3 billion in three months I can see that they are solid.

The banks and the oil companies are the lucky beneficiaries of this government's tax policy, but there are no Conservative tax giveaways for Quebec's forestry companies, sawmills, paper companies and manufacturing companies that have not made a profit during this economic crisis.

Instead of gouging the least fortunate, what is the government waiting for to put an end to the tax holiday for the banks and make them pay their fair share?

[Taxation, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the six major Canadian banks have raked in a “mere” $5.3 billion in net profit over the past three months.

While the government is raiding the pockets of the unemployed, while it is wasting public money on doorbells and potted plants, the Minister of Finance is not even considering collecting from the banks.

His complacency toward tax havens allows them to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes.

Why does the government not require the banks, these billionaires in times of recession, to pay their fair share of taxes?

[Government Spending, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, instead of cutting $1 million worth of nonexistent positions, the government should tax the bonuses of the top earners. Just by taxing total capital gains on stock options the government could collect $1 billion. That is 1,000 times more profitable than the bogus announcement it made yesterday.

Why is the government refusing to increase taxes for top earners?

[Government Spending, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is fooling the public by announcing that it is cutting vacant positions.

To achieve a balanced budget, the Bloc Québécois has proposed a surcharge on the richest taxpayers, those whose taxable income is greater than $150,000 or $250,000.

Instead of making bogus announcements at Tim Hortons everywhere in Canada, when cutting a modest $1 million, why does the government not tax the richest to the tune of $4.8 billion?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is much more pleasant to speak to you than to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

What was his stance when we were talking about sales tax harmonization and the $2.2 billion that his government, the Government of Canada, has owed Quebeckers for 18 years?

Some people just do not measure up, and it is up to the member opposite to tell us where he was on those issues.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my grandfather used to say that if you are not sure how to corner someone, either you set a trap or you shoot straight.

What was your stance, sir, when your government caucus was talking about assistance for the forestry industry? What was your stance when small municipalities kept saying that one-third/one-third/one-third was too much for them? What was your stance when everyone was talking about a March 31, 2011, end date, which is not viable? Where were you on the $2.2 billion tax harmonization issue—

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if you had allowed me to speak earlier, I could have asked my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques what he thought about the behaviour of our colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. They are against the budget, but they will not vote against it. It is the same thing with the member for Yukon, who seems to be against the budget, even if we do not know how he will vote on Wednesday.

I have a question for my colleague. It seems as though those buying isotopes might no longer be required to sell the isotopes produced to healthcare institutions in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. It could therefore sell them to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. So they would be produced here, but we would not have them for ourselves. I think this is connected to the dangers of privatization that she mentioned and the lack of transparency.

I would like to know more about the situation for owners. They are owners, yes, but they do not decide anything and will have absolutely none of the isotopes produced.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while those most in need have been left to fend for themselves, the government is allowing the wealthiest to save more than $1 billion per year on stock option plans. The Bloc Québécois suggested that a super tax be imposed on such bonuses.

Why has the government decided to not take more from those who have more?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, even though the effects of the crisis continue to be felt, the Conservative budget ignores the needs of the most disadvantaged. Forestry workers are being left to their own devices. Thousands of unemployed do not have access to employment insurance. The poorest seniors have to manage on a guaranteed income supplement that does not cover their most basic needs.

Why is the government refusing to help those most in need?