Pierre Paquette

[Banking Institutions, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has changed the legislation on banking institutions to oblige banks to open an account for any customer who meets the minimum requirements.

According to consumers' associations, however, the planned regulations on access to basic services weaken that obligation by giving the banks too much latitude.

Is the Minister of Finance aware that his planned regulations allow the banks too much discretion, particularly in permitting them to deny an account to someone merely because he or she has had credit problems in the past?

[Employment Insurance, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the parliamentary secretary to say that the government has cut the premiums, but over the next year, the minister will again take $3 billion from the pockets of workers and employers.

When will the minister and the government stop dipping into the EI fund, establish a premium rate that corresponds to needs and create an independent EI fund that is managed by employers and workers?

[Employment Insurance, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, among the many leaks orchestrated by the Minister of Finance before he brought down his budget, his promise to review management of the EI fund fizzled.

In announcing consultations to set the premium rate, the minister is only repeating his predecessor's broken promise from September 2000.

This time, will these consultations lead to something other than the government funnelling off $45 billion from the EI fund at the expense of workers and employers?

[The Budget, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance, in declaring that the fathers of the Constitution made a mistake in giving the provinces jurisdiction over post-secondary education and by creating this new institute and the new Canada Graduate Scholarships, not trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to create a federal department of education?

[The Budget, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the latest budget proves once again that the federal government cannot resist interfering in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. The latest example is the Canadian Learning Institute, with its $100 million budget.

This will interfere in a big way with Quebec's ability to make its own choices in education and occupational training.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us if the federal government intends to use this institute to evaluate how Quebec has done in terms of learning, professional development and occupational training?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the board of directors of the new investment board will adopt an ethical investment policy.

As I said earlier, we are entitled to expect that what Canadians save, because Canadian society as a whole had agreed to defer income taxe for acertain number of years, will be used for absolutely irreprochable purposes, from an ethical standpoint.

I hope the board of directors of the investment board will implement such a policy, by banning all investments in tax havens and in businesses operating in those jurisdictions.

Therefore, for the time being, I will leave things up to the future board of directors. If this is not enough, then we may have to consider establishing a supervisory body.

While I have the floor, let me announce that, within the next few weeks, I will be introducing a bill providing for restrictions on Canadian investments in tax havens. That will give us the opportunity to discuss this issue further.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak for the second time about Bill C-3, which deals with the establishment of the Canada pension plan investment board.

As I said previously, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. This initiative is very similar to the one Quebec took in the 1960s when it established the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. This bill puts the final touch to a reform that is already underway, by transferring the Canada Pension Plan's assets to the board.

This is as good a time as any, just a few days after the finance minister tabled his budget, to point out the link between the bill and an issue of great concern to Canadians and Quebeckers, namely our aging population. As we know, the number of retirees will increase over the next few decades. The latest budget, which mentions the consequences of Bill C-3, does not adequately address the issue of making sure Canadians and Quebeckers will have sufficient savings upon retirement to keep them from poverty's doorstep. In this respect, Bill C-3 only deals in part with the issues of the aging population and the number of retirees.

There is still a lot of work to do and, as I said yesterday, I would have expected this budget to announce a thorough rethinking of the ways we, as a society, can make sure Canadians and Quebeckers put aside the money they will need when they retire.

The only rather worthwhile thing the finance minister has come up with in the budget is a measure to raise the limit of RRSPs from $13,500 to $18,000 over a number of years, but this will only benefit a minority of Canadians and Quebeckers. In Quebec, only 1.5% of taxpayers contribute the maximum of $13,500.

The budget did not put enough emphasis on this, and that is unfortunate. Although Bill C-3 is a major step toward ensuring that workers have adequate retirement incomes in the coming years, I have to admit, unfortunately, that this is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the challenges facing society in Canada and Quebec.

Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-3. The Canadian Alliance has withdrawn its amendment, which, in our view, was totally inappropriate. When society agrees to defer tax payments for a number of Canadians, it is entitled to expect that the savings will be reinvested in Canada and in Quebec first.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting the government on Bill C-3, although we do realize that it is a just a tiny drop in the bucket, given the scope of the problem.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government members are always right, but they are usually the only ones who think the way they do.

Allow me to read from a news release from the provincial first ministers from January 23, 2003.

First Ministers agree to the immediate restoration of the federal CHST funding to at least 18% of total health and social expenditures this fiscal year.

If funding must be restored to 18%, then it cannot already be at 18%. I submit that the current level is 14 or 15%.

I will continue reading:

First Ministers agree that this amount is approximately $5.4 billion—

What was announced yesterday was an additional $2.5 billion for the CHST.

In closing, I would like to read just this short passage from the news release:

First Ministers agree to escalate this federal contribution by 1% per year of the CHST equivalent to achieve a 25% financial partnership by the end of the decade as recommended by a number of eminent Canadians.

It may be that we are wrong and they are right, but they are the only ones who think so. In Canada, most people, like us, believe that the provinces are short on money for health, and that the federal government has not met the demands of the public.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government did withdraw from health and post-secondary education. As we speak, it is contributing 14¢, perhaps 15¢, on every dollar spent. With the investments announced, its contribution might rise to 16%, or 16¢.

That is very far from what it was at the time when the system was put in place, and still far from what the provinces and the Séguin commission are recommending.

The federal government will have no choice: either it reinvests massively in transfers for health—because we now know that there will be such a thing—or it will have to give tax points back to the provinces and let them manage them as they see fit for health care.

There is a democratic problem. From the moment that the provinces depend on the federal government for health care, the legislative assemblies, including the National Assembly of Quebec, can no longer take action on the democratic choices of the people of Quebec, and this is also true of the other provinces.

We are gearing up for an election in Quebec. There will be a debate on health care. Voters in Quebec will make choices. The National Assembly may not be able to afford to take action on the choices made with respect to health care, and this is unacceptable.

The same goes for to education. The federal government did not add a cent for the provinces in the budget. Of course, there is a new grants and loans program and all that, but the provinces are still getting only 8¢ out of every dollar for education.

In closing, a change was introduced with the creation of separate envelopes for health and for social programs and education. I think it will be necessary to review the financing, as was done for social assistance a few years ago. For each dollar that Quebec put into social assistance, the federal government used to put in an equal amount. It was possible then to show imagination and creativity, and we did not have to scrounge around for every dollar, as the federal government is forcing us to do now.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to understand this properly, one must look at the past. In fact, during the second world war, the provinces ceded part of their tax field to the federal government so that the latter could finance the war effort.

Since then, the provinces, particularly Quebec, have been fighting nonstop to recover their tax field. It is true that Quebec was able to regain part of its tax field during the 1960s when the federal government returned tax points to Quebec. But it was Quebec's tax field. The same thing happened in the 1970s: part of the tax points we ceded to the federal government during the second world war were returned to us.

That said, the battle is not over. Yesterday's budget makes this abundantly clear. When additional expenditures of $6.4 billion over the next five years can be announced in the course of one afternoon, it is a sign that the surpluses are astronomical and that part of the federal tax base could be given to the ten provinces, seven of which are currently having financial difficulties.

On the other hand, the fiscal imbalance is also due in large part to the fact that the provinces' responsibilities, which were perhaps less important when the Constitution was written than they are now—I am talking about health, the environment and education—are now the public's primary concerns.

The federal government is all alone now. All Canadians, particularly in Quebec, and all the commentators agree. All that remains is to convince the federal government. That is going to take some time. I know that it is hard to get the government to understand, but it will see logic in the end. The provinces will eventually recover these tax points so that they can assume their responsibilities. The public is already demanding it.

As for employment insurance, I cannot understand the member's reasoning. It is true that the premium rate has decreased over the past few years, but the government has nonetheless managed to build up a surplus of nearly $45 billion in the employment insurance fund. Let us not kid ourselves. The former Minister of Finance was able to balance his budget and build up a surplus on the backs of the unemployed, workers and small businesses. The current premium rate is unnecessary. At $2.10, the government will still have a surplus of $3 to $4 billion in the employment insurance fund. At $1.98, it will still generate a surplus between $2.5 and $3 billion. This is unacceptable. That is not the purpose of the EI fund. We are asking for the EI fund to be managed by those who contribute to it. The federal government got out of that business in 1989, and it should stay out.

They may say, yes, but there were deficits in the past. Well, there was never a $42 billion deficit. These are excuses and specious arguments. If the government wants to be honest, it should transfer the fund to the contributors and find another way to finance itself. It will have to forego $3 billion, part of its surplus. As I was saying earlier, before the measures announced yesterday, we thought that over the next two years the surplus would have been $25.8 billion. In the interests of common sense, they can certainly do without this $6 billion.