Thierry St-Cyr

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a simple answer. We will vote against the Liberals' motion because we do not support piecemeal agreements that violate the principle of equalization.

To get back to the issue of Conservative members from Quebec who are supposedly working in our best interest, one might ask why there are two levels for natural resources: 0% and 50%. Moreover, why is it that the level that would be best for Quebec, that is, 100% inclusion, is not in the budget? Why is it that in this budget, a province that would benefit from the 0% level can choose, and a province that would benefit from the 50% level can choose, but a province like Quebec, which would benefit from a 100% inclusion, cannot choose? Because it is not in the budget. Is that, perhaps, because the Conservative members from Quebec did not do their jobs? Perhaps they did not do their jobs, but there might be another possibility. Maybe they are not able to do their jobs. Maybe the Quebec members do not participate in making this government's decisions. Why? That is the problem with this federation. This federation was not created for minorities like Quebeckers.

The only solution open to Quebeckers is to take charge and get out of this dependency situation calmly, peacefully and with good will. They must understand that Canadians want to build a country in their own image that meets their own needs. Fine. Who can blame them? We, however, as Quebeckers, should do as Canadians, Germans, the French, Americans, Venezuelans, the Congolese and who knows how many others around the world have done: make our own decisions.

That is the choice we have. It all starts next Monday.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal motion before us today is a perfect example of how poorly Canadian federalism is working. By making piecemeal agreements, by creating a patchwork of claims and promises all over the place, we completely lose sight of the essential element of this issue. What is before us now, among other things, is the equalization issue.

Let us review the fundamentals of the equalization principle. What is it all about? Equalization is a system that redistributes tax revenues from all citizens—Quebeckers, Maritimers, Westerners, Ontarians and everyone else. The government puts all those tax dollars together and then redistributes them to some provinces to give them similar fiscal capacity. That is the goal. The goal is that no matter which province a person lives in, the provincial governments can provide services similar to those offered in the other provinces. Each province makes its own choices, but they should all be able to count on having similar fiscal capacity.

Normally, the process should be pretty simple. Average fiscal capacity is calculated according to how much each province can collect in sales and income taxes and fees of all kinds. Then, provinces that fall below the average fiscal capacity are given enough money to reach that capacity, without penalizing the provinces that are above the fiscal capacity average. This system seems very simple and should work very well, but it is not working properly. Why? Because the government has lost sight of the essential elements of the system and has signed on to a bunch of piecemeal agreements for preferential treatment for various regions.

The Liberal motion and their position on these piecemeal agreements that were already in place are a concrete example of how the government will try to sign individual, piecemeal agreements to show favouritism to various provinces over and above the principle of fairness provided for in the equalization program.

So much for the Liberals. However, we note that the Conservative's proposal in the budget also goes down the same road in that, regardless of the principle of equity, regardless of the principle of wanting all provinces to have a similar fiscal capacity, arbitrary rules will be established that will change the formula and benefit or disadvantage certain provinces. The rule found in the current budget excludes half of tax revenues from non-renewable natural resources.

That may seem technical, but really it is not. It is very, very concrete. The end result is that provinces that produce a great deal of non-renewable natural resources appear to be less rich than they are in reality. When their capacity is calculated, their ability to raise tax revenues is understated and their overall fiscal capacity is then changed accordingly.

For Quebec, among others, this represents billions of dollars in losses year after year. That would not be the case if all revenue from non-renewable natural resources were included. It should be noted that we were not asking for preferential treatment for Quebec.

We were only asking that the basic principle of fairness be applied so that all provinces have the benefit of the same fiscal capacity.

Why exclude non-renewable natural resources? Since the debate began no one in this House has been able to answer this question. The reason is simple: there is no rational reason; the only reason is quite arbitrary. It was decided, just like that, to exclude this area of tax revenue because it was in the best interests of certain provinces. Furthermore, it allowed some politicians to defend their provinces. And very well, indeed.

So why, for example, were renewable resources such as hydroelectricity not excluded? The Government of Quebec earns significant revenues from its hydroelectricity. Excluding this resource from the equalization formula would have generated much more money for Quebec.

Why not exclude revenues from the aerospace industry? As if! Why did the members from the Bloc Québécois not stand up and ask for that? Honestly, why did my fine colleagues not think of that? They should have thought of that. Let us exclude the aerospace sector from the equalization calculation. It just so happens that this sector is in Quebec. Well, that would be great! Why did none of the Bloc Québécois MPs ask for that? Because it is completely arbitrary. Why exclude sectors of the economy from the equalization calculation? There is no reason other than to unduly disadvantage one province. For that reason, I believe that the Liberal motion is off base.

Even though the government's proposal in the budget gives Quebec some supplementary money, it does not go far enough to fully respect the principle of equalization, which is to ensure the same fiscal capacity for everyone by taking into account all the revenues the provinces might benefit from.

There is another adverse effect to excluding non-renewable resources from the equalization calculation. When it comes to the Kyoto protocol and reducing greenhouse gases, there will be incentives for provincial governments to develop these industries at the expense of other industries.

We already knew there were incentives for companies, for the oil companies and so forth, but now there will be incentives for governments. A provincial government is better off developing non-renewable energies since the revenues the province earns from those resources will not be included in the equalization calculation. That government will therefore earn twice as much money.

This is not productive at all. It is unfair and should be changed quickly, in the next budget, I hope. In any case, the Bloc Québécois will continue to fight for all natural resource revenues to be included, whether the resource is renewable or not.

Some will say that this represents a lot of money for Quebec. Nonetheless, out of all the provinces that receive equalization, Quebec receives the least per capita. In this group of provinces that receive money under equalization, Quebec is by far the most populous. Therefore, the total amount of money should be greater.

Nonetheless, we must not be fooled by this figure. It is normal that, in all the transfers, the more populated provinces receive more in total than less populated provinces. That is the very principle of equalization. The principle aims to ensure that all provinces can provide the same services to their citizens. It is therefore only normal that more populated provinces need more money to provide the same services.

The question of equalization is only one aspect of the larger problem that is the fiscal imbalance.

The Bloc will support this budget because we see the beginnings of a move to correct the fiscal imbalance. The money is on the table and, since a good portion of that money belongs to Quebeckers, of course we will take it. However, the government must go even further.

Let us get back to the basics. The expression “fiscal imbalance” exists for a reason. In Quebec, the Séguin commission is the basis for a consensus that transcends all political parties. Everyone subscribes to it. When Mr. Séguin and the members of his commission decided to name this problem the “fiscal imbalance”, they did not pull these words out of a hat at random. They did not believe that, by putting together the words “fiscal” and “imbalance”, they would baptize the problem.

There is an underlying reason for the expression “fiscal imbalance”. It is simple. They called it that because, first of all, it is an imbalance, and secondly, because it is a fiscal problem. they did not call it the “budget imbalance”, the “monetary imbalance” or the “financial imbalance”. They called it the “fiscal imbalance”. Thus, we are talking about a fiscal issue, a taxation issue, here.

The imbalance arises from the fact that the federal government takes too much in income tax to provide the services it is constitutionally bound to offer. And on the other hand, the provinces do not have enough tax revenue to be able to offer all the services they are bound to provide.

The problem continues to grow because the provinces’ independent tax revenue remains stable while federal government revenue increases significantly. At the same time, the provinces’ expenditures are steadily increasing because education and health account for a large part of provincial budgets. They cost a lot. The increase exceeds inflation, while the expenditures of the federal government are much easier to control and increase much more moderately.

What conclusion can we draw from this? Only a tax solution will make it possible to settle the fiscal problem once and for all. It means transferring some tax fields from the central government to the provinces. To my mind this is obvious.

This week the Minister of Finance said that the fiscal imbalance was over. My goodness, he has not understood what the fiscal imbalance is. He demonstrates perfectly that the presence of the Bloc Québécois in this Parliament is more necessary than ever. He claims to be solving a problem but he is showing clearly that he has not understood.

If he had not understood the word “déséquilibre”, I would have said to myself that, since in English the term is imbalance, perhaps the translation was not right. However, the word “fiscal” is written the same way in English and in French.

So there are no reasons to explain why the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister do not understand the meaning of the word “fiscal”. There is no reason for them not to understand that they cannot claim to have settled the problem once and for all as long as they have made any fiscal transfers?

And what would those be? What the Séguin commission most enthusiastically recommended was a transfer of the GST, probably because that would be the simplest thing. For example, the federal government could stop collecting the 6% tax in Quebec, and in return, the Quebec government would collect 6% more for itself. For the taxpayer this would have no impact, but it would have an impact on Canadian federalism. This would enable Quebec to have independent revenue, revenue it can control, that it can plan on and that is not subject to the vagaries of the federal government’s decisions.

Such is today’s reality: Quebeckers, even with this beginning of a settlement, remain dependent upon the federal government.

It is dependent because, on March 27, after the election, the government can change its budget if it wants to. It can change the equalization formula. The fact is that for the past five years, the equalization formula has changed nearly every year. It is time to escape from this dependence, and in the short term, under the current federal structure, that can only be achieved by a fiscal transfer.

I spoke of the example of the GST, which could be used. There could also be a transfer of income tax points. That has already been done in the past. The federal government could agree to a reduction in income tax for residents of Quebec, and, in return, the Government of Quebec could raise more income tax from its taxpayers. This was done during the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and René Lévesque. When the Prime Minister told us yesterday that he would not negotiate with a sovereignist government, he revealed the extent to which he does not understand reality and also how contemptuous he is of Quebec democracy.

In my opinion, there is a message that must be drawn from the Prime Minister's remarks this week. It is that this government believes it can get away with anything. He scorns Quebeckers when he says, “We have settled the fiscal imbalance. We have decided that the fiscal imbalance is resolved and those who are not happy can go back home”. Then he says, “From now on, we will negotiate only with those we choose. If the government that you elect—that Quebeckers elect—does not suit us, we will not negotiate with it”. That is intolerable and unacceptable because it denies Quebeckers the right to choose their own government.

I am convinced that the Prime Minister's remarks will arouse Quebeckers, because they know that having the Parti Québécois in power in Quebec will best defend their interests. That is certainly obvious and we saw it clearly in the reaction of the party leaders after the unfortunate remarks by the Prime Minister. Only André Boisclair stood up and said that no one can tell us whom to choose as our government. The choice will be made by Quebeckers and the federal government will have to accept that choice. That is all that we ask of it.

This is not the first time that the government has interfered in the decisions made by Quebeckers. It did so in the last two referendums, and in 1995 it did so in a particularly shameful way, spending millions of dollars during the referendum campaign to promote its option in violation of Quebec’s referendum law. So the federal government has obviously learned nothing. It is still the same dominating, centralizing, paternalistic government that tells Quebeckers what to think and do. It still does not understand the Quebeckers want to take charge of their own affairs. That is where I am headed.

What we see here is an inability to resolve the fiscal imbalance and develop an equalization plan in keeping with the basic principles of a normal federation. That shows us one thing: the only way forward for Quebeckers is to take charge of our own affairs and have a country of our own, not because we do not like Canadians—I like most of my colleagues here with whom I have had a chance to go out, have a beer, and so forth—but simply because we are obviously bad for each other. We are bad for each other because in wanting as many powers as possible for our National Assembly, in wanting to make all our own budgetary choices, and in wanting to pass all our own laws, we Quebeckers prevent Canada from becoming what it really wants to be, that is to say a country with a strong central government that gets involved in education, health care and a multitude of other areas outside its own jurisdiction.

The choice that Quebeckers are going to make next Monday is to say that we are going to make the right decision, we are going to choose to pass all our own laws, to control all our budgets, to sign all our international treaties and to make our voice heard in the rest of the world. This choice means giving ourselves a country and achieving sovereignty, and that starts by supporting the Parti Québécois next Monday.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, evidently the Prime Minister does not intend to respond to Mario Dumont's request and amend the Constitution in this regard.

At the very least, would he be willing to present a bill that would grant the right to opt out, with full compensation and without conditions, of any federal program in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction in order to balance the federal government's spending power? Will he table a bill in this regard?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated on several occasions that the issue of the fiscal imbalance has been settled. That is not the case. Not only did he not transfer tax fields to the Government of Quebec, but he also did not balance the federal government's spending power by granting Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation.

Does the Prime Minister intend to heed the request of Mario Dumont and amend the Constitution in this regard?

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It allows me to continue to talk about the bill that the Bloc Québécois put forward to use the surpluses from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

We have to understand that this money did not fall from the sky. Of course, this money is paid by people who receive mortgage loans to buy their house. These are people who have bought a house and whose situation—we hope— is favourable.

In the Bloc Québécois, we really saw this as a solidarity measure, that is taking the surpluses in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and continuing to invest them in housing to improve the quality of the rental housing stock, to build new housing units, that is low rental units, cooperatives, affordable housing and to have all kinds of housing programs. We wanted this money not to be left there indefinitely. Once again, there are no real reasons of caution that require that all these funds be left with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Of course, the provisions to respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces provided that this money would be transferred to the Quebec government, which could use it for this purpose.

It is a little sad to see that Liberal and Conservative members opposed this measure. I believe that housing is still a huge concern for citizens everywhere in Quebec and in Canada.

In my riding, I know that there are many housing needs. I go door to door a lot. I meet people and they tell me often about this. I am surprised and I have a hard time believing that, in ridings represented by Liberal and Conservative members, people are not facing the same kind of problems. I was a little surprised not to receive their support concerning this important bill that we introduced in the House.

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about this quite a bit in committee after I proposed an amendment that was deemed inadmissible by my hon. colleague’s seatmate. I do not hold it against him, though, because we thought that would happen.

I still brought forward the amendment so that it could be discussed. People are worried about this. It was pointed out that there are ongoing discussions about identity theft in general at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Surely this committee—and I imagine the same will be true of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights at some point—can produce a specific proposal to make identity theft illegal and a criminal offence in all cases. A person cannot make use of someone else’s identity, regardless of the reason or whether there was fraud or not. It should be a punishable crime in itself just to try to steal someone else’s identity or collect information in order to use someone else’s identity.

I have been wondering how the financial institutions’ responsibility could be included in the current legislation on identity theft. The government has a certain power of initiative in this area and I encourage it to think about this problem and draw up regulations or work together with the banks, at least on a temporary basis, so that they assume their responsibilities on their own. Government and finance department officials, among others, placed considerable emphasis in committee on self-regulation, on how unnecessary it was to pass legislation on everything that arose, and on how they were going to work together with the banking industry so that it would adopt and implement its own rules.

The advantage of this approach is obviously that it is faster than the legislative route. I encourage the government, therefore, to put pressure on the financial institutions. I encourage these institutions to add voluntarily to their code of conduct that they will hold themselves responsible for any cases of identity theft or mortgage fraud that might arise as a result of such theft. That would make it unnecessary for us to legislate. It would show their sense of responsibility, make them accountable, and force them to be more careful at all times. Once someone is responsible for any future fraud, they pay more attention because they will have to pay. It is the same for the financial institutions.

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as long as there are no other questions, I will respond to what was just said. It is worth noting that my Liberal colleague is concerned about the matter of houses and housing in Canada and Quebec.

There was a question that I wanted to ask him, if we had the time: when the Liberals were in power, why did his government slash funding for social housing programs?

Those programs were very important and helped the most disadvantaged people in our communities. Those cuts seriously hurt people in our communities. The housing situation is a matter of concern in some neighbourhoods, in Montreal for one, but also everywhere in Quebec and Canada. I would have liked to hear his response on that subject.

I would also have liked to hear his response on another subject. The Bloc Québécois recently introduced a bill to invest the surpluses accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in social housing to help people who need it most. Why did they vote against it?

I have just bought a house. I am persuaded that most homeowners who have paid premiums to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and have had the chance to become homeowners would have been happy to lend a hand to people who have not had that chance and who are having trouble finding housing.

I find the response astonishing. I think it is a shame that when the Liberals had the opportunity, they did nothing for renters and people looking for homes—for the people. They did nothing. I will return to this a little later in my presentation.

Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, for a number of reasons. First, the bill will create mechanisms for transmitting information to consumers, and this will enable them to make informed choices about the banking services they use.

Bill C-37 will also establish the regulatory framework to allow for digital data to be used in cheque processing, which will reduce the time that cheques are held by banking institutions.

Bill C-37 will reduce the regulatory burden for foreign banks, credit unions and insurance companies, to make the regulatory compliance mechanisms more efficient.

The Bill will also change the rules that apply to mortgage loans so that more individuals will have access to this financial vehicle. The government will raise the equity threshold to $2 billion from $1 billion for ownership of a bank by a single shareholder, to encourage new competitors to enter the market. For all these reasons, the Bloc will support the bill.

I will not be able to list all of the provisions in this bill, obviously. It is a very large bill, the size of a hippopotamus, and it refers to another bill, which is itself the size of a hippopotamus. It is an enormous bill. Some of its provisions were of particular interest to me.

The first, to which I referred in the beginning following my colleague's speech, is the provision regarding the ratio, the minimum equity that is required for a mortgage so as not to have to pay mortgage insurance.

At present, the minimum equity ratio is 25%, with the corollary being that the maximum ratio of the mortgage to the value of the purchase is 75%.

This rate will be reduced from 25% to 20%. If someone takes out a mortgage for 80% or less of the value of the home, he or she will not be required to buy mortgage insurance. In my view, that is good.

Allow me to recount a bit of the history of this requirement. The threshold was last changed in 1965, so quite a long time ago. At that time, the rate was 66.7% or two-thirds. In 1965, it was raised to 75%.

Now this bill would raise it from 75% to 80%. In previous times, this requirement was a prudential measure intended to protect lenders against fluctuations in interest rates and property values and ensure that we did not find ourselves in a situation where many people could not pay their mortgages back.

The market has obviously changed a lot over the last 30 years, partly because risk-management practices have improved. Banks are much better now at predicting the risk posed by various borrowers. Regulatory risk-based capital requirements have been implemented and have generally matured. This is to ensure that it is really capital, real assets, and the financial market has changed.

The supervisory framework for federally regulated financial institutions has been strengthened significantly. It seems obvious that the restriction does not play the same prudential role that they used to. As a result, the statutory requirement for a 75% loan-to-value ratio is no longer necessary.

Even if people in the market do not have enough money for the down payment, they can get mortgages with higher loan-to-value ratios, but then they will have to get mortgage insurance.

The Finance Committee held a long discussion and debate on the point at which the mortgage insurance market should be opened to other insurers than the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which currently provides most of the mortgage insurance. Genworth Capital also does so. This is a discussion that will doubtless continue.

We see more and more mortgage lenders requiring down payments even with less and less mortgage insurance. Five per cent is common now. We have even mortgage insurance of 2.5%. According to some promotions, virtually no down payment is needed any more. So the 25% down payment required to avoid having to buy mortgage insurance no longer made sense.

In fact, it forced people who were able to make a large down payment but less than 20% to buy mortgage insurance for virtually nothing. This will, therefore, help these people save a little money, which is a good thing.

I tried to introduce an amendment pertaining to mortgages, which could have been addressed in this bill, but unfortunately it was beyond the scope of the bill. As a result, my amendment was ruled out of order. We need to look at the banks' responsibility for mortgage fraud. People are increasingly concerned about mortgage fraud. For example, someone steals an individual's identity, then takes out a mortgage on the person's home or takes over the person's titles to property, then takes out a mortgage and takes off with the money.

The courts have handed down judgments in such cases, but they are contradictory or ambiguous. People whose houses were stolen or mortgaged without their consent are today being asked to pay up or lose their homes.

I would have liked to see a provision added to the Bank Act to ensure that in cases of identity theft, the bank is held responsible for the fraud and for repaying the mortgage in some other way. If this provision had been adopted, the bank could not have gone to a property owner who had been a victim of mortgage fraud and said that he or she had to repay the mortgage that had been fraudulently taken out on the property.

The amendment was not approved, but I plan to raise this issue again in the near future. In any case, I hope that the government is aware of this issue and will move forward.

Certainly, improvements can be made to protect people against identity theft in general, because as the law stands at present, identity theft itself is not a crime. Using a false identity to commit fraud is a crime, because of the fraud, but identity theft itself is not a crime as the law stands at present. This is something that should certainly be changed. A good measure would be to protect people by making sure that in cases of identity theft, the banks are automatically responsible. This would force the banks to take every precaution to avoid another fraud. If such a measure were in place, the banks would be held responsible for anything that happened. Currently, consumers are held responsible.

In our society it is increasingly difficult to protect ourselves from identity theft. There are many things consumers can do, but our personal information is given out. It circulates more and more. We have recently seen data stolen from computers. Hard drives have been lost. So it is very hard to say to consumers that they are responsible for not having their identity stolen and that, if it is stolen, it is their problem. I think it would be better to have the banks bear the burden.

I said earlier that we support the measure pertaining to mortgage loans, since it is a good measure. We had other projects for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which I mentioned before. The bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois, which aimed to use some of the surpluses accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide social housing was rejected. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it. Regarding social housing in general, the Conservatives’ record is certainly as bad as the Liberals’.

I would also like to touch on another measure provided under this bill, namely the length of time during which cheques are held once they are deposited in a financial institution. When we deposit a cheque we have received in one branch, this is the beginning of a lengthy trip from the place where the cheque is deposited to the issuing institution. Then, once it is approved, the cheque makes the return trip to the place where it was deposited. Actually it travels around here and there and obviously may physically cover great distances that increase hold times.

The current bill makes provisions for digital imaging. So instead of having the cheque travel physically, it could travel in digital format, which would greatly speed up processing. The banks claim that this measure will reduce the longest hold time from ten days to six, and then to four days, once the system is fully operational. To my mind four days is still long. They say, though, that it is much faster in the very large majority of cases. A hold period of four days would be for the most difficult cases.

However, I must say, the question of the time it takes to process financial transactions has come up repeatedly in committee. There is a reason for this. It is because our fellow citizens often mention it. In this modern age of the Internet and electronic transactions, people expect a little more instantaneousness—if I may use that word—in transactions performed by financial institutions.

More and more, the funds are frozen for a while when we deposit a cheque. The funds may be frozen even if the cheque is processed quickly. Furthermore, when we transfer funds from one account to another, the money can disappear from the first account for a few hours or a few days before it re-appears in the other account. People are wondering where that money went in the meantime.

I can give a rather interesting example from my personal experience. I told the committee about it when I was addressing my questions to the various bank representatives. I sold some shares and received a cheque from my stockbroker. I decided to invest this money in an RRSP. Thus, I wrote a cheque to my financial advisor. Both cheques were deposited on the same day, at the same time. What happened? The cheque I wrote to my financial advisor was withdrawn from my account immediately and I therefore had an overdraft. Since my account has overdraft protection, the money was taken from my line of credit. That same day, I had deposited a cheque from the broker who sold my shares, but that money was not immediately deposited to my account. I therefore found myself in the ridiculous situation of my line of credit being in the negative and my account showing a positive balance, but I could not transfer any money from one to the other because the funds were frozen.

At the time, I asked my banker what was happening and why I was being charged interest. He said that the money from my broker had not been deposited in my account yet. He did not have the money yet and was therefore holding the funds for a few days. I told him he still had not transferred my own money to the other account so why should he charge me interest? He was unable to give me a reason.

I made another attempt in committee. I asked why when I am expecting money it is held from me, but when my money is transferred elsewhere it is immediately debited. No one was able to give me a reason.

I have given this personal example because, obviously, I do not want to disclose the circumstances of the constituents who come to see me. The fact remains that people frequently tell us about this type of problem. Banks and financial institutions have to make major improvements when it comes to processing time or else we will have to consider regulating this matter, since it concerns so many people.

In closing, I would like to address two points, including a provision in the legislation on bank mergers. We are still very concerned about possible mergers between monstrous banks the size of giant hippopotamuses—truly gigantic ones—at the expense of the consumer. We are not completely satisfied with the provisions and we will keep a close eye on the bank merger file. We hope that if mergers occur, it will always be in the best interest of the consumer.

The last point, which is not directly related to the bill but is something we discussed a lot in committee, is the issue of income trusts. Once again, the Bloc Québécois did not think it was a good idea to provide a tax advantage to income trusts. If this structure, this approach to organizing companies, is appropriate in some cases, then it should be allowed, but we should not encourage companies to be structured this way just for the tax breaks. That said, we think it was completely irresponsible of the Conservative government to promise not to tax income trusts. Now it has broken its promise. We agree with taxing income trusts, but we condemn the way it was done.

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the provision in the bill that will reduce the minimum equity that must be applied to buying a house, in the context of a mortgage, to 80% of the value instead of 75%. I will have the opportunity to talk about this myself in my presentation. What is his opinion on this provision?

[Income Tax Act, February 23rd, 2007]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-294, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 1 with the following:

“(A) the taxpayer is, in that month, a registered participant with, or member of,

(I) a sports team or recreation program of the employer in respect of which membership or participation is restricted to persons under 21 years of age, or

(II) a sports team or recreation program of a college or university,”

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will, of course, support Bill C-294, now before us, because it helps young athletes.

The situation in which athletes find themselves is a reflection of the importance given to sports. And there is work to be done, considering that this country will host the 2010 Olympic Games.

The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, which is a step forward to help athletes directly, because, in many cases, they must pay to participate in their sport, particularly young athletes, who receive very little help, both in terms of money and visibility or credibility.

There is only one program providing direct financial assistance to athletes, and that is the Assistance Athlete Program, or AAP. The funds earmarked for this program account for only 13% of the overall budget for sports in Canada.

So, despite the minister's announcement earlier this year that this program would be improved, the fact remains that athletes need more support from the federal government, which seems to perceive these athletes more as a source of visibility and pride, than as people who should get support.

So, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which provides additional assistance to athletes, particularly young athletes, who must often spend large sums of money to train in order to perform, on things such as food and housing, sportswear, transportation, tuition fees, medical expenses, travel and competition expenses, registration fees at competitions, training session costs, membership fees, food supplements, and so on.

The amendment that I presented at report stage, and which is proposed by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to recognize the important role of Quebec and Canadian university sports, as regards sport issues.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment that you read is to add a second part to clause 1(A), so as to include a sports team or a recreation program of a college or university. That is an addition. The bill already includes all the teams whose members are under 21 years of age. However, university teams should be supported, because they include young athletes. In many cases, some members of those teams will be over 21 years of age, and it would be unfortunate to exclude them for that reason.

To highlight the importance of university sports in Quebec, I would like to speak about an event that takes place every year from September to March. More than 10,000 student-athletes participate in 11 sport disciplines, with a schedule of close to 3,000 events. These events lead to the ultimate goal in university sports: claiming the National Championship title. This weekly competition provides student-athletes with the best there is to offer in Quebec and in Canada.

Annually, regional champions from the four conferences vie to compete in the following disciplines or championships, which are held in November of every year: women's field hockey; men's and women's cross country; women's rugby; men's and women's soccer; the Mitchell Bowl, which is the football semi-final; the Uteck Bowl, which is also a football semi-final; and the Vanier Cup football final.

In March of every year, the following championships take place: women's and men's wrestling; women's ice hockey; men's and women's swimming; men's and women's volleyball; men's and women's indoor track and field; men's and women's basketball; and the University Cup for men's ice hockey.

There are many events at the university level which deserve to have this clause included in the bill.

No other sport organization in the country can match the breadth and scope of such a program. From Victoria to St. John's, student-athletes competing for national honours represent an exciting vibrant dimension of Quebec and Canadian society. Every Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) student-athlete must attend an annual drug education seminar as part of the CIS drug education and doping control program. The seminar highlights key issues and health concerns of drugs in sport. This seminar is extremely beneficial as it allows the student-athletes to discuss the ethics of drugs in sport and educates them about CIS's zero tolerance policy.

Internationally, student-athletes can experience the excitement of the Winter and Summer World University Games, the second largest international multi-sporting events in the world, second only to the Olympics. Every two years, student-athletes have an opportunity to compete with the best from around the globe in 12 sporting disciplines at the summer games and seven sporting disciplines at the winter games. These games provide Canadian university athletes with a unique experience both culturally and athletically and are often the platform for student-athletes to launch their international athletic careers.

My purpose in summarizing these various activities was to emphasize the contribution of university sports to the next generation of Quebec and Canadian athletes, and to support the motion in amendment I tabled at the report stage.

The purpose of Bill C-294 is to amend the Income Tax Act to provide additional support for athletes by excluding from their taxable income allowances from non-profit groups or associations. Concretely, the bill proposes adding a provision to the existing Income Tax Act to exclude from their taxable income any allowances for board and lodging and any other reasonable expenses of the taxpayer that are paid to or on behalf of the taxpayer by a non-profit organization in connection with its operation of a sports team or a sports or recreation program, to a maximum of $350 for each month of the year, adjusted annually to reflect inflation. This applies in two cases: if the taxpayer is registered during the year with the organization as a member of the sports team or as a participant in the sports or recreation program; and if the taxpayer is under 21 years of age. In fact, membership in the team or participation in the program must be restricted to persons under 21 years of age. We are proposing this amendment because we found that the part that allowed only for teams whose members were all under 21 years of age automatically excluded many university students.

I would like to take a moment to illustrate how important Sport Canada is. This bill does much more than give tax credits to athletes, it reopens the debate on funding for amateur sport and the general situation of athletes in Canada and Quebec. Sport Canada is the public agency that administers sport in Canada. The agency comes under the Department of Canadian Heritage and under the direct political responsibility of the Secretary of State for Sport, who reports to the minister. Its mandate is to help athletes achieve excellence in high-level sports and build a Canadian sports system in order to reinforce the unique contribution sport makes to Canada's cultural identity.

Unfortunately, I will not have time to talk about the various programs Sport Canada offers, but the purpose of my presentation was to demonstrate that, even though some efforts are being made, we are not providing enough support for our athletes, especially young athletes. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We encourage all parliamentarians to support our amendment in order to ensure that this bill includes university sports.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a way to speed up the process, and that is to establish the refugee appeal division, since that process is much less intense and much simpler. We are talking about a quasi-administrative tribunal, which is also a lot less expensive than an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, it must be put in place. Not only is it the logical thing to do, but it is also the law. Furthermore, the United Nations Committee against Torture is calling on Canada to establish this tribunal, so that decisions may be appealed in all cases.

I would also like to point out that, even in the case of the Superior Court, not all decisions can be appealed. It is an extremely long and costly process, not only for the applicants, but also for the government and society in general. Not to mention that it is ineffective.

The short answer, simply, is yes. Let us lift an administrative burden, eliminate unnecessary costs, and establish this appeal division, which will allow everyone to be heard, which will comply with the act, and which will fulfill our international obligations.