Meili Faille

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the important work that the member for Chambly—Borduas is doing in this file.

The Bloc Québécois is demanding substantial improvement to the employment insurance system. I would like to read the Bloc's position on this issues. We must make the following changes:

Reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; increase the rate of weekly benefits from 55% to 60%; eliminate the waiting period; eliminate the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force; eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length; make it possible for self-employed workers to belong to the program on a voluntary basis; and calculate benefits based on the 12 best weeks.

Those are the major improvements that need to be made to the employment insurance system.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. Everything he said is important.

With regard to the most vulnerable, I believe the government is way off base. It would have been wiser to choose its targets better, among others, the changes to the equalization formula. To add to what my colleague said, changes to the equalization formula will cost Quebec almost a billion dollars a year, $991 million to be exact. The bill also lays the foundation for creating a national securities regulator, which the Government of Quebec opposes.

There is also the matter of reforming access to employment insurance. The government refuses to abolish the waiting period. For thousands of unemployed workers, there is nothing encouraging in the budget. The bill proposes misguided tax reductions and eliminates provisions of the Income Tax Act aimed at preventing corporations from avoiding taxes by resorting to tax havens. There is also the matter of deregulation of foreign investment, which opens the door to foreign ownership. Funds allocated for social housing are poorly targeted and allocated, as indicated by the community development trust. And that is not a complete list.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the group of amendments submitted by the Bloc. For those who are listening, I would like to recall that the budget implementation bill puts into effect several initiatives including tax cuts, elimination of rules for tax deductibility for foreign corporations, and tax havens, which I will discuss in just a moment. It also includes changes to the employment insurance plan which, we believe, do not go far enough and do not address demand or provide the assistance needed by workers in these rather difficult economic times.

In addition, the budget will fund a transition office to oversee the creation of a single securities regulator, which my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke about earlier. The budget also sets a cap on equalization payments and reforms the equalization formula, which has outraged the National Assembly. We have in our hands a motion by the National Assembly and our colleagues in the Government of Quebec, which criticizes the federal government for this. The budget also includes items pertaining to the Employment Equity Act, about which our colleague from Laval talked about extensively last week when she initiated a debate about the status of women.

We would like the House to accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc. Clause 6, which permits the use of tax havens, should be deleted. This short budget clause eliminates a section of the Income Tax Act that was designed to close a loophole used by Canadian multinationals to avoid paying taxes. Tax havens have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 1995, and recently, from 2000 to 2002, as well as in the 2003 and 2005 reports, the Auditor General reported on the use of tax havens, which are a from of tax avoidance. Section 18.2 of the Income Tax Act would have plugged this loophole as of 2012.

There is no justification for rescinding this section and it is quite scandalous. We need measures that will create jobs here in Quebec and Canada. We do not need measures that will create competition for local businesses that do not have the means to benefit from such a mechanism.

In this difficult economic context, the Bloc Québécois as well as thousands of taxpayers would like to know why the Minister of Finance is surrendering in such an important battle. The global economy as a whole is threatened by offshore investments and tax havens.

It is inconceivable that we would approve a decision by the Conservative government to allow too many financial transactions to go through tax havens. We must not let companies escape the social contract with the people and run away from their responsibilities. Many Quebeckers and Canadians pay taxes, and I am sure they are outraged to learn that companies will have the right to use such a mechanism and that the government wants to encourage tax evasion by multinationals.

The lack of transparency of tax havens makes it hard to identify credit risks and promotes market distrust. A report by the Auditor General revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency had a hard time properly monitoring international financial transactions and tended to go easy in tax probes of major corporations so as not to hurt relations with those companies.

Is the finance minister so blind that he did not understand from what the lobbyists said that companies are evading billions of dollars in income tax? Tax havens equal major capital flight. In 2000, according to the Auditor General, losses due to tax havens were equivalent to 50,000 taxpayers not paying their taxes. What about today? Statistics Canada says that the use of tax havens is on the rise, which is cause for concern.

The young people in my riding, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, want to know why it was not right to use tax havens to avoid paying tax in 2007, yet it became a good thing in 2008. Workers, seniors and the most vulnerable members of our society are asking themselves the same question.

The Minister of Finance knows, however, that we need some sort of oversight over the international financial market. In his 2007 budget, he said that steps had to be taken to ensure everyone pays their fair share. He complained that some foreign and Canadian corporations were using the tax rules to get around paying tax. He said that every time this happens workers and small and medium-size businesses have to pay higher taxes. He concluded by stating that it was unfair.

The anti-tax-haven initiative was proposed to prevent multinational corporations from using tax havens and other tax avoidance structures to generate two expense deductions for the same investment. Today, not only has the economic situation worsened, but the Conservative government appears to have taken steps to increase the injustice.

The Minister of Finance, members will recall, had already backed off in the fight against tax havens by acting on pressure from financiers in Toronto. He gave them a five-year grace period before the implementation of his plan to fight tax evasion and then set up an advisory panel whose independence and neutrality are highly debatable.

The finance minister out and out reneged on his commitment in the fight against tax evasion when he blindly accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Canada' s System of International Taxation. This panel was clearly set up to justify the minister's change of heart.

Of the six members of the panel, four are from private companies that may have benefited from the strategy and still can. They include, for example, the former CEO of the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Canadian bank with the most branches in tax havens. The authors of the report are clearly in conflict of interest.

How can the Prime Minister today justify allowing banks and oil companies to avoid taxes through tax havens, when thousands of jobs are being lost each month and businesses are closing their doors?

The fight against tax havens is an ongoing fight. Things must change democratically. A number of European countries would like tighter legislation right away and a much more transparent means of disclosing international financial transactions. Billions of dollars are involved. The disappearance of over half of the money to tax havens is cause for concern.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Mississauga South. The first group of amendments refers to a section of the act that deals with tax havens.

Can he talk about his party's position on that issue?

[Durban Review Conference, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the United States decision to send a delegation to take part in the preliminary negotiations to finalize the draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference scheduled for April 20 to 24, in Geneva.

Will Canada finally abandon its empty chair policy and, like the U.S., participate in that conference?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He probably noticed that I did not have enough time to fully express my indignation over the equalization formula. It is completely unacceptable that the government waited until the middle of the holiday period, while no one was here and everyone was in their ridings, to publish regulations in the Canada Gazette changing how it treats Hydro One, and depriving Quebec of millions of dollars.

As for Ms. Jérôme-Forget's letter, I would like to be able to read it in full in this House. It describes what the Bloc Québécois has been expressing all day, that is, the indignation of all members from Quebec, who represent the Quebec people as a whole, regardless of their party affiliation, indignation caused by what the federal government is doing in the securities and equalization files.

For one thing, I would like the minister to explain why it was necessary for Ms. Jérôme-Forget to correct the facts. She says in her letter that what we hear from federal government officials, the minister himself and the people around him, is incorrect. For instance, we heard the argument concerning the cost of equalization and were told that it would increase by 15% each year, an untenable rate. The Quebec minister says this is an exaggeration.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just says this out of ideological stubbornness. If he were out in the field meeting businesses in his riding, he would know that what is currently proposed is nowhere close to adequate. If he were listening to his colleagues in the Quebec National Assembly, he would arrive at the same conclusion.

The Bloc Québécois is not turning its back on Quebeckers here. In fact, it is expressing at the top of its lungs what is being said in Quebec and what is happening in the field. Our priorities may differ from time to time. In this case, though, we have to defend the interests of Quebec, and that is what we are doing.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about this issue and to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Quebec. I would also like to share my views during these difficult economic times on two files that seriously affect Quebec.

Many of my colleagues have spoken and tried to do so very objectively. They expressed the views of various players on Quebec's economic scene. I did the same in this House a number of times over the past months when I was responsible for defending the securities file.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his clarifications in the House and his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. It seems that the government is stubbornly pursuing its plans to implement a national securities commission and unilaterally amend the equalization formula. I am imploring the House to stand united and demand that the federal government renounce these two measures that were in the last budget.

The National Assembly is unanimously opposed to the proposed amendments to the equalization formula and to a Canada-wide securities regulator. Amending the equalization formula would mean a loss of $991 million for Quebec next year. By refusing to include revenues generated by Hydro-Québec’s transmission and distribution activities, as is the case for Hydro One, Quebec would receive approximately $250 million more in equalization. Securities fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The National Assembly is unanimously opposed to the establishment of a common securities regulator. Establishing a common securities regulator would jeopardize the survival of trading activities in Montreal and would favour the concentration of financial markets in Toronto. The World Bank and the OECD reported that the current system works well and is both efficient and effective.

The Bloc Québécois and the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges—I am speaking on their behalf today—agree with the Bloc Québécois motion and we are asking the government to renounce these measures that were in the last budget.

Quebec's demands are clear and precise. On the eve of the federal provincial meeting in January in preparation for the federal budget, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion expressing Quebec's demands. I will not bother with all the paragraphs in the motion, but I would draw the House's attention to two points, two demands:

That [the National Assembly] demand that the federal government maintain the equalization programme that is currently in place;

and

That it reiterate its firm opposition to the Canada-wide securities commission project.

Here, in this House, the Bloc Québécois and all the Quebec MPs have a duty to represent the National Assembly. And with a unanimous motion like this, we can defend—to our respective parties—the position we intend to take on the vote that will be held this evening. I implore Quebec MPs not to turn their backs on their colleagues from Quebec in the National Assembly and to support the Bloc's motion.

Indeed, as I explained earlier, the whole matter of the securities commission is Quebec's, constitutionally. It belongs to the provinces and to the Government of Quebec. The Conservative government, and the current finance minister in particular, seem obsessed with denying Quebec important rights to manage its finances and with moving those rights to Toronto for the country as a whole.

The consensus in Quebec is real, and no one wants to give up any authority at all in this area. Earlier on, the member for Mississauga South expressed confusion over the relevance of this debate today. And there is another reason the Bloc is drawing this matter to the attention of the House. A clear message must be sent to the government that this is unacceptable.

Why are we paying such attention to this question? Because the whole issue of securities is vital to the economy. In our current, more difficult economic situation, this issue is vitally important, and the provinces are entitled to take offence at the attitude of the federal government in this file.

The public has to know that the position of the Bloc is, I repeat, the same position adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. We speak with one voice at the moment where Quebec is concerned. This evening, we will likely see a common front against Quebec on this. I implore members to do their job and to consult the securities commissions in their respective provinces—except members from Ontario—and to report to this House what they think about this single securities commission.

Today, it could not be put more clearly. We have a motion, passed unanimously by all parties in the National Assembly and, here, an offensive by the Bloc calling on this government to abandon these two budget measures.

Quebec has the authority in this area and wants to keep it. It wants to maintain this power in the economic sector. The desire of the provinces in this matter must be respected.

Earlier today, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel expressed concern about people swindling other people. We are referring to those who commit economic crimes and the thinking behind that, namely that these individuals tend to get off easy. His case for a securities regulator included references to such situations. He was concerned about people slipping through the cracks. I would like to respond to that. A number of experts and securities commission presidents are of the opinion that the federal government should focus on its own areas of responsibility, such as the Criminal Code, for instance, specifically to address economic fraud. I think the member was probably alluding to the widely publicized case of Vincent Lacroix. While Mr. Lacroix was found guilty under the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers, additional charges might be laid against him by the RCMP under the Criminal Code. There are loopholes, and the legislation is not strong enough. In that regard, the federal government and the members of this House could do more to precisely strengthen that aspect.

Regarding Quebec, I would like to make another point about the Autorité des marchés financiers concerning operations monitoring and the types of operations. It reflects a perhaps different, made in Quebec model. This model is characterized by Quebec social values which pervade the general approach to public finance management in Quebec. We are talking about such things as the implementation of protection and compensation programs for consumers of financial products and services. Compensation funds are set up by law. The originality of the Quebec model has to be noted. We do not want to do without this ability to innovate in such an important sector.

Unfortunately, the budget confirms the government's intention to put in place a single securities commission. We, in Quebec, want to have an exciting economic future to look to.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about his speech. First, perhaps he could explain the difference in treatment between Hydro-Québec and Hydro One and clarify that for us.

[Transportation, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the railway infrastructure in the Montreal region is so old that some of the switches have to be operated by hand. The CN and CP lines must be upgraded to enable the Agence métropolitaine de transport, the AMT, to provide quality service to its users. The budget allocates $407 million to upgrading rail lines located almost exclusively in Ontario.

Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also commit funds to improve the rail lines used by the AMT's suburban trains?