Pierre Paquette

[Government appointments, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is handing out partisan appointments left, right and centre. After Rights & Democracy and the CRTC, it is now the turn of the CBC to be subjected to the Conservatives' attempts to take control by appointing Pierre Gingras to the board of directors of the crown corporation.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his government is packing the boards of the organizations he wants to control with his party's cronies in order to impose his Conservative ideology?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It gives me a chance to come back to this subject.

When the economic crisis hit, the Conservatives said that they would lower taxes to help businesses, but that did not help all businesses. In the forestry sector, for example, a sector that we have in my riding, the tax rate could go down to 15% and it would still not help Les entreprises TAG or the mill in Chertsey because they are not earning a profit.

What we are looking for, and what we have set out in our budget expectations—which were made public by the member for Hochelaga—is assistance that targets certain sectors, such as the forestry sector. Tax cuts will not help them. More often than not, tax cuts for major corporations simply go straight into the pockets of senior managers or stakeholders. They do not go into job creation or productive investments. The government must target much more than that.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the thing we disagree with is the broad-based tax cuts. That is our position.

I have already said we are in favour of the tax cuts for small and medium-sized enterprises that have already been made. For some businesses like banks and oil companies, there is certainly a lot more groundwork to be done. We think that not only should these companies not have their taxes cut, but they should be contributing more to the collective effort.

Our position is clear: no to broad-based tax cuts, yes to tax cuts for SMEs and yes to increases for certain businesses that have the means to contribute to the collective effort, especially at a time when the deficit is as big as it is.

The member referred to the Conseil du patronat du Québec. At a caucus meeting with the Quebec chamber of commerce, I asked Ms. Bertrand why, despite the tax cuts, investments were not going up in Canada and Quebec. She said that it was a mystery. To anyone who tries to claim that lowering taxes automatically stimulates growth, I say that that is untrue. There is an old neoclassical, neo-liberal saying that today's tax cuts are tomorrow's profits and the day after's jobs. That is unfounded. Once again, I refer to the study that I mentioned earlier in my speech.

Our position is clear. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the finance critic and I all agree that there should not be broad-based tax cuts for major corporations.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, from the outset I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

We have before us a motion moved by the Liberal Party that reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Government’s decision to proceed with cuts to the tax rate for large corporations fails to address the economic needs of Canadian families, and this House urges the Government to reverse these corporate tax cuts and restore the tax rate for large corporations to 2010 levels in the upcoming Budget.

As the hon. member for Hochelaga, our finance critic, said this morning, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this Liberal motion because we think that at a time when Canada has an extremely large deficit—to the tune of more than $50 billion—we have to ensure that the burden is shared equitably by all sectors of society. When corporate taxes are being cut, that necessarily means the government will get that money one way or another, either by increasing fees and taxes, which will essentially affect the middle class, or by cutting services, which will also affect the middle class and the less fortunate.

I want to point out as well that the Conservative Party, the government and the Minister of Finance have never told us how they will ever be able to return to a balanced budget. They say it will take five years, but they have never provided a real plan. The Bloc Québécois has quite a detailed plan, and I will get back to that later.

For a number of years now, even under the Liberals, the taxes on profits have been constantly reduced. It was Paul Martin who started these cuts, and it is obvious by now that they have not had the desired structural effect.

Productivity has remained a problem in Canada, in comparison with our competitors, and investment still lags. If tax cuts had had the magical effect the Conservatives expect, we would have seen it already. But that has not happened.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a study published in Austria in September, 2010. It is called Do higher tax ratios result in lower economic growth?. Five researchers studied the effect of taxation on economic growth across all the OECD countries and reached the following conclusion:

There is no statistical evidence to the negative relationship between the tax ratio and economic growth.

There is no automatic relationship, therefore, between tax cuts and economic growth, despite what the Conservatives claim. We think that corporations like banks and big oil companies should be required to help, given Canada’s current financial situation. That is why we oppose a general reduction in the tax rates on corporate profits.

The Bloc Québécois is not opposed, of course, to tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, which create so many jobs. These tax cuts were actually already implemented under the Conservatives’ so-called recovery plan, and the Liberal motion does not call them into question.

We have also noted all the gifts made to the oil companies in particular over the last few years. In addition, banks are still allowed to use loopholes in the law to send money to tax havens and thereby avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden we all share. The tax system is an expression of society's solidarity and makes it possible to provide services and support to those who need it. This can be in the form of family policies, policies to fight poverty or income support for people who lose their jobs.

We will be voting in favour of this motion because we are opposed to a general reduction in taxes for large corporations.

I will now come back to the oil companies. The government says that it does not directly subsidize oil companies. That is false. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has calculated the direct assistance given to companies in the oil and gas sector. It estimates that, in Canada, oil companies receive $1.3 billion in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government every year. Moreover, the Conservative government, like the Liberal government before it, has changed how the amounts are calculated.

Previously, mining and oil companies received tax breaks based on their operations. The government decided to change this and to have companies deduct the royalties payable to the provinces from profits before applying federal taxes. In light of the difficulties experienced around the world by the mining sector at a certain point—although not as serious now, there was a crisis a few years ago—the provinces and Quebec significantly reduced the royalties paid by mining companies. However, royalties paid by oil companies have been substantially maintained. In the end, this tax reform gave an advantage to the oil sector and put the mining sector at a disadvantage. This was criticized because it resulted in taxation of the oil sector in Canada being even more advantageous than in the state of Texas. There is room for creating a new balance and a bit of fairness. We believe that oil companies can be taxed appropriately.

Overall, the benefit to the oil industry was estimated at $3.2 billion in 2010. This money should be recovered by the federal government in order to return to a balanced budget and to maintain programs that help Canadians, especially the middle class and the most disadvantaged.

The Bloc Québécois presented proposals to balance the budget, as announced by our finance critic a few weeks ago. I just spoke about what we should be looking for from the oil companies. We must also consider the banks, which resort to tax havens. We could go after a great deal of money. In 2009, the five major banks saved $1.3 billion in taxes by using these tax havens. Barbados is surely the ideal tax haven for Canadian banks.

I know that Scotiabank, for example, has shell companies scattered throughout the Caribbean to ensure that it does not have to pay its share. What is interesting is that, in their annual reports, banks are required to list their tax savings, savings achieved through the use of tax havens. This gives us an idea. There are also other companies, other big corporations, that are able to use these types of strategies to avoid paying their fair share to help the collective effort.

I would like to remind you that, a few years ago, the Auditor General was concerned about the erosion of the tax base because of the use of these tax havens.

In a period like the one we are experiencing today, we must therefore eliminate tax havens and gifts to oil companies and expect those who have had the chance to accumulate a bit more wealth to contribute more. For example, our proposal involves asking members of Parliament to help our. We propose that taxpayers who earn between $150,000 and $250,000 pay a 2% surtax—members of Parliament would not be exempt—and those who earn over $250,000 pay a 3% surtax until the deficit is eliminated. This would produce $4.8 billion.

I would like to close by speaking about two other proposals that are included in our plan, namely, the reduction of federal bureaucratic spending—there are many ways to reduce costs without affecting public servants or services—and the fight against contraband, which is very important. We feel that the Conservative government is still dragging its feet on this issue. As I said in a previous speech, the Conservatives are tough on crime but only on petty crime. Serious criminals are never affected.

[Justice, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the week, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois and the Prime Minister agreed to work on a bill to abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served, a bill that could have the unanimous backing of the House.

I met with the government House leader and we quickly agreed to two principles regarding this bill: first, that it abolish parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served and, second, that it apply immediately to white collar criminals such as Earl Jones.

Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell me if we still have an agreement and whether the government has the will to deal quickly with this matter, perhaps at the beginning of next week?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a security perimeter is desirable and has been proposed by the Bloc in the past. However, security, trade and fundamental freedoms must be balanced. Canada has postponed today's meeting twice because the Canadian authorities believed that Americans were asking for too much information, especially with respect to Canadian travellers.

Does the government realize that this issue is of such importance that it requires transparency and public debate before any decision is made?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is meeting today with President Obama to negotiate a common security perimeter and establish a working group to prepare a joint plan of action within 120 days.

How can the Conservative government explain that, with such a short deadline, neither Canadians nor parliamentarians have had any information and there has been no debate in this House about this very important matter?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because it allows me to make another point I have not had time to mention.

One of the big negotiation problems Canada is running into with the South American countries is that it is trying to impose chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which gives multinational companies and corporations state status, thereby allowing them to sue another state before a special tribunal. Proceedings are under way. Canada had to pay $300 million for decisions Newfoundland made with regard to a forestry company whose name I forget, because it wanted to avoid going before the special tribunal under chapter 11.

In the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama, chapter 11 is chapter 9. When did this chapter 11 come to be? It did not exist in the North American Free Trade Agreement or on the international level. It appeared when the United States and Canada entered into negotiations with Mexico. Since we did not trust the Mexicans—we being Canada and the United States, not me—a chapter was included allowing Canadian and American businesses to challenge the laws and regulations of the municipalities, provinces and countries involved. These countries were targeted. That is why a large number of Latin American countries refuse to negotiate with Canada. They do not want to negotiate with the United States either because they know full well that the scales are tipped in favour of big business against national governments and national sovereignty.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, internationally, Canada has a responsibility to uphold major international conventions. And it should start by signing the seven fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization.

There is a big difference between doing business with the entire planet—including countries that do not respect workers' rights—and having free trade agreements that favour trade relations between countries. There will be a number of debates about the possibility of a free trade agreement between Canada and APEC because certain member countries pose a problem. I want to make a distinction. I am not saying that we should not trade with China, Panama or even Colombia, but there is a big difference between trading and favouring these countries by signing trade agreements, such as free trade agreements, with them.

There is another reason. The Bloc favours a multilateral approach within the framework of the World Trade Organization as opposed to bilateral, piecemeal agreements that are directed at the weak, in essence, using the countryside to surround the cities, as Mao Zedong said. That is what Canada is doing with the United States.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

I am pleased to do so because I have the sense that by participating in this debate, much as our party critic in this area did, one is really doing something positive, not only for the Quebec nation, but also for the Canadian nation. Indeed, some members of this House are taking a back door approach in order to sign a free trade agreement that will be extremely harmful to Panamanians, Canadians and Quebeckers.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not support this implementation bill, and for a reason that is very important to us: Panama is a tax haven. Not only is it a tax haven, but it is on the OECD's grey list. Accordingly, it is a tax haven that does not co-operate with the OECD and does not sign the agreements set out by that organization.

Furthermore, Panama has seriously repressed its union movement. I would remind the House that in June 2010, the Panamanian government passed Law 30, which is considered to be very anti-union by the World Federation of Trade Unions and the International Labour Organization.

Of course, the government members will tell us that the president of Panama announced on August 5, 2010, that he plans to comply with all ILO conventions and remove the repressive aspects of the law. So far, however, no such action has been taken and we can only wonder what the real scope of the labour co-operation agreement with Panama will be. In that regard, I would also like to point out that the other co-operation agreements we have signed, whether concerning the environment or labour rights, have never been very effective and have never produced anything beyond meetings and symposiums. They have never led to any corrective measures when it comes to labour rights. Therefore, that is our second reason for opposing this free trade agreement.

I would also like to add that the Bloc Québécois is not completely inflexible on this issue. In 1994, the Bloc Québécois, who had been in the House for one year, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, although, at that time, the Bloc was unaware of the magnitude of the effect that chapter 11 would have on the protection of American and Mexican investments in Canada. Clearly, this chapter also applies to the protection of Canadian investments in the United States and Mexico.

The fact remains that we supported this agreement at the time. We also supported free trade agreements with northern European countries. A Conservative member mentioned it earlier. We have absolutely no problem with this.

We are following with great interest the negotiations for an agreement with the European Union, despite the fact that we have some concerns, we are waiting for explanations and we would like to see the documents. I would like to remind the members of the House that the unions have been asking for these documents. As parliamentarians, we should have them, as has been the case in the past. Surely, the members remember how, several weeks before the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the governments that were negotiating agreements around the free trade area of the Americas made their negotiation documents available. That is certainly not the case with Panama and the European Union. However, we must still give the government the benefit of the doubt. Quebec and the Bloc Québécois are among those who have been promoting a free trade agreement with Europe for an extremely long time already, at least a decade. We hope that such an agreement will yield positive results for Canada, Quebec and the European Union.

Once again, in certain cases, we do not support the signing of trade agreements with countries that do not abide by a certain number of rules. Such is the case with Panama and Colombia. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Canadian government would be so irresponsible as to want to sign an agreement with Colombia, knowing full well that human and labour rights are violated there on a consistent and repeated basis.

It is evident that what is important is to have a position based on principles. Yes, we support opening borders, but we also support complying with major international agreements on human rights, labour rights, environmental rights as well as cultural diversity, which is extremely important.

In the case of Panama, the situation is even more serious and, in my opinion, this has not received sufficient attention in this debate. An article appeared in Le Devoir on January 10, 2011, entitled “The Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement—Cozying up to the Drug Trafficking Paradise”. It was written by Alain Deneault, the author of Offshore, paradis fiscaux et souveraineté criminelle, and Claude Vaillancourt, who is the co-president of ATTAC-Québec. Not only is Panama a tax haven that does not co-operate, even by OECD standards, but it is a tax haven that makes life easier for drug traffickers. And that is the kind of bill promoted by the Conservative government. It says it is tough on crime. It is tough on petty criminals, but it is the friend of big-time criminals and we have the proof: the Panama free trade agreement it is trying to make us accept.

I would like to read a paragraph from this article in the January 10, 2011 issue of Le Devoir.

Panama certainly deserves its bad reputation. This country's main economic activity is providing financial services to drug traffickers and multinationals. It has specialized, among other things, in discount flags of convenience, without any bureaucratic red tape. This allows vessels to sail without worrying about domestic laws and sailors' working conditions.

Capital enters and leaves Panama without any restrictions. Transactions are protected by banking secrecy rules, and there is no monitoring of financial activity. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is nevertheless fairly accommodating when it comes to evaluating how co-operative tax havens are, has placed Panama on its “grey list”.

Panama is a tax haven, and one that makes life easy for drug traffickers and money launderers. We are talking about organized crime, the mafia and other criminal groups or organizations. This will have disastrous effects on Panama. It will allow organized crime groups from Canada to launder their money in Panama. It will also allow some organizations that are currently located in Panama to benefit from the rules in the free trade agreement and locate here, in Canada and Quebec.

I remind members that the OECD has come up with four criteria to determine whether a country is a tax haven. The first is whether the jurisdiction imposes no or only nominal taxes. For example, I remember the case of Barbados—I believe—where the tax rate is regressive instead of progressive. The higher the profits, the lower the tax rate. They start with the wonderful rate of 3% and go right down to the alarming rate of 1%. Since Canada has signed a double taxation treaty with Barbados, if a Canadian company operating in Barbados meets a certain number of administrative criteria and has paid that wonderful tax rate of 1% on its profits, it is able to repatriate money to Canada tax free. That was the first criterion.

The second criterion is a lack of transparency. I have already said that Panama fits the bill. The third criterion is whether there are laws or administrative practices with respect to the exchange of information. Panama has refused to sign the 12 bilateral agreements to meet the OECD standards. The fourth criterion is whether there is any indication that the country is attracting investments solely for tax purposes and not for the purposes of economic activity.

Panama fits that definition of a tax haven. As I mentioned, since it has refused to sign the 12 agreements, it is currently on the grey list. So before we implement this agreement, we must be certain that Canada has signed a tax treaty with Panama and that Panama meets the OECD criteria. Otherwise we would simply be an accomplice to international organized crime.