Daniel Paillé

[Tax Evasion, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that same individual chided Canada for having agreements with Panama, which is a tax haven.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Canadian banks have raked in an after-tax net profit of $46 billion, $6 billion of that because of their presence in tax havens. That seems to me to be quite a bit.

By putting an end to tax evasion, the government could rebalance its finances and would have the leeway to help the economic sectors that need it.

Why is the Minister of Finance helping his banking friends and saving them billions of dollars through their use of tax havens?

[Tax Evasion, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government lacks political will when it comes to both harmonization and tax havens.

In parliamentary committee, Brigitte Alepin, a specialist in the field, admonished the government for making it easier for the wealthy to evade taxes. She reminded us that the last budget contained new provisions that encourage tax evasion through the use of tax havens.

Why does this government encourage the use of tax havens?

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, February 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate our colleague's ability to keep things simple. Twice he spoke about the section of the code and then explained it in words we could understand. I am not a criminal lawyer, I am a humble banker, and he helped me to understand things better.

I would like him to use his ability to keep things simple and tell us, in two words, what the differences are between Bill S-6, which we studied yesterday, and Bill C-48, which we are looking at today.

[Harmonization of Sales Taxes, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's policy of not taxing diapers and books stems from its political choices. The federal government has nothing to do with that. Minister Bachand has asked the Prime Minister to intervene to get negotiations moving.

Since we cannot trust the federal finance minister, who gives Ontario preferential treatment, will the Prime Minister step in and get negotiations moving right away?

[Harmonization of Sales Taxes, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois does not need anyone's permission to defend the interests of Quebec, and certainly not that of Jean Charest.

There is a difference between managing a tax and having the power to impose a tax. Quebec does not tax books because we want to support a cultural policy. Quebec does not tax diapers in order to support our family policy. That is what it means to exercise fiscal independence. It seems that some of our social choices are being questioned in the negotiations. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the negotiations with Quebec broke down over that? Otherwise, what is the holdup?

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's experience and way of speaking. His eloquence was clear as he began by saying that his remarks would sting. It reminded me of the day that I went to his riding when we began our prebudget consultations. He told us to hang onto our hats because it was going to hurt.

Knowing his characteristic seriousness, I was surprised and impressed that this distinguished criminal lawyer used figures. I would like to draw a parallel. He said that the current system put in place by our Liberal colleagues works very well and he asked why the government would change it. We could ask the same thing about Canada's securities regulatory system, which works well. Why change it?

Has my distinguished colleague given any consideration to the fact that the Conservatives have a habit of not fixing things that are broken, but attacking things that work fine?

Earlier, my colleague asked for an additional half an hour. I will quickly take my seat and ask him to keep up the good work and convince our Liberal friends to vote as we will and to continue to uphold the law that currently exists. I turn the floor over to my colleague, who is extremely eloquent.

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

At 10:10 a.m.

[Finance, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the junior finance minister should do his homework: these disputes have been going on for years. It is high time these matters were resolved.

The stabilization program issue has been dragging on since 1991-92. Even though two courts ruled in favour of Quebec, in 2007 and in 2008, we are still waiting for the federal government to pay Quebec its fair share. How can the government give billions of dollars to Ontario and nothing to Quebec?

It is Quebec's turn now. Does the minister understand that?

[Finance, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two budgets, Quebec's loss was Ontario's gain. The federal government owes Quebec more than $5 billion according to Quebec's finance minister. This is beyond negligence by the federal government. It is contempt. In addition to the $2.2 billion for the harmonized sales tax to match the compensation given to the other provinces, there is the $1.5 billion for equalization and Hydro-Québec, $800 million for post-secondary education and $127 million in stabilization payments.

When are they going to pay their debts?

[Financial Institutions, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Finance, representatives from the Department of Finance restated their decision not to ask the banks to close their subsidiaries in tax havens, as France has done. What is more, these officials confirmed that by using tax havens the banks saved $1.5 billion in 2009.

Why is the Minister of Finance attacking low income workers, but allowing his banker friends to save $1.5 billion by using tax havens? Let the Minister of Finance answer.