Robert Carrier

[Taxation, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the double deduction is a tax loophole that facilitates the unwarranted export of capital. The government likes to say that this provision makes Canadian businesses more competitive. However, its main trading partner, the United States, has rejected the double deduction.

Can the government tell us how exporting capital in these times is good for jobs, investments and the economy in Canada?

[Taxation, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a number of countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have condemned tax havens and reaffirmed their commitment, at the G20 summit, to tighten financial controls and crack down on tax evasion. Oddly enough, Canada has taken the opposite stand by reinstating a tax loophole.

Can the government explain why it is helping billionaire companies and abandoning those in need?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised to create an independent agency. But, according to the Budget Officer, the current setup cannot guarantee this independence, and the fact that its duties are not governed directly by Parliament make it vulnerable to political interference.

Does the government intend to support the Parliamentary Budget Officer and do whatever it takes to ensure that he can fulfill his mandate free from any interference?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out that inadequate funding is preventing him from doing his job properly. If he does not receive the money earmarked for his budget, this will result in significant layoffs in his office before the end of the month, thereby limiting even further his ability to do his job.

Does the government's unwillingness to adequately fund the Parliamentary Budget Officer stem from its desire to silence anyone who does not share its views?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on the fine speech she gave concerning our seniors. As she so clearly pointed out, for several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to have this principle recognized, to acknowledge our seniors and ensure they have enough income to live their lives with dignity.

I wonder if the member would not agree that, regardless of everyone's personal opinion, our current economic climate actually presents the perfect opportunity to invest this money in our seniors, who are so deserving of it, in order to stimulate our economy. As we all know, if these people had even the slightest increase in their incomes, they could really benefit from that and spend money in their communities. I would like to know her thoughts on this.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues from Laval and Saint-Lambert for their fine presentations. Their testimonies were very touching and of course I support them. I have never had to turn to employment insurance, but I am nevertheless aware that people are losing their jobs, especially in this time of economic crisis.

My colleague from Laval was talking about the money the government has at its disposal. There are many economic stimulus programs. Some $4 billion is being invested to help Ontario's economy, while almost no money is being invested in employment insurance. Does she think this stems from the current government's ideology, in that it does not really want to help people who lose their jobs?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my hon. colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook.

I agree that it is important to stimulate the economy in these tough times, but I think it is also important to take care of the workers who are losing their jobs.

He said the government knows this, but the only significant measure in this budget helps only a tiny minority of workers who are already receiving employment insurance. The Conservatives want them to receive benefits over a longer period, but they are completely ignoring those who should be receiving EI.

I would like to know his thoughts on this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question. Indeed, I ran out of time and was not able to talk about equalization. In addition to failing to introduce effective economic stimulus measures, the government will undermine the effectiveness and integrity of Quebec by its frankly unilateral changes to equalization payments, despite a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the government not to change the formula for calculating equalization without allowing some time to discuss it and explore other solutions. The federal government simply decided to deprive Quebec of $1 billion in the next budget. This will automatically lead to a deficit in Quebec, since the provincial government was counting on that money. That is what is appalling.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada decided that revenues from electricity distribution in Ontario by Hydro One would be considered corporate revenue and would therefore not be factored into the equalization calculation, although the same calculation method does not apply to Hydro-Québec. Quebec will lose another $250 million in equalization because of this decision, which is unfair to Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. NDP colleague for his question. Clearly, it would be overly optimistic to hope that any adjustments or amendments might be made, considering the current Liberal-Conservative coalition. The Liberals are supporting this budget, which offers nothing worthwhile.

I deplore that. I am particularly concerned that the 10 Conservative members and the 14 Liberals members from Quebec are supporting this budget, which does nothing to help their own region, Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I did not know about the project he mentioned. However, it is clear that we need many social and affordable housing projects. Currently, low-income families with two, three or four children cannot find housing at an affordable price. Any projects that can help these people would be appreciated.

There is a need in my riding. That is why I was questioning the government about a building it owns. It is the government's responsibility to convert it into housing units for the public.