Gilles-A. Perron

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the famous matter of the GM plant located in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Before I start, I would like to salute your son, who is doing such a great job these days for the Montreal Canadiens.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Joliette.

I truly cannot understand why GM is closing its Boisbriand plant. As my colleague has just said, it is acknowledged as one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, of GM's 30 North American plants.

I would remind hon. members that 96% of the vehicles assembled at the Boisbriand plant go directly to dealerships, thanks to the quality of the work done by the Canadian auto workers in my region, the CAW members as I will refer to them from now on.

I wish to inform those who are listening that, as we speak, all the plant equipment is being labelled and will be shipped to other GM plants in North America.

As for the Boisbriand paint plant, it will be relocated to Mexico. Let us remember that it was funded equally by Quebecers and Canadians with a 30 year interest free $220 million loan. The loan will come due in 2017. The former president of GM Canada told us at a press conference that she will repay these $220 million in 2017.

What disturbs me the most is the laxness of the federal government toward this situation. Besides the loss of 1,400 direct jobs and 6,600 indirect jobs, all our region will be dramatically affected. With the loss of the auto industry in Quebec, it is young Quebecers who are highly qualified for a specialized job who will pay the price.

Speaking about paying the price, the closing of such a huge plant will lead to considerable social costs: personal bankruptcies, family breakdowns, domestic violence, depression that might even lead to suicide. People who worked at the Boisbriand plant and who lost their jobs have committed suicide. I personally know some of them.

For the last two years, CAW people have met federal ministers time and again but they always refused to hear their grievances.

As soon as the closing of the GM plant in Boisbriand was announced, the Liberal government's total lack of interest in the employees' cause was obvious. It was obvious at the press conference in Boisbriand, in the town council room where Bernard Landry, then finance minister, and the current deputy prime minister, who was then industry minister, were present.

The latter paid lip service to the issue, proposing vague federal programs that might be available to help out GM. Bernard Landry, on the other hand, offered a detailed assistance plan by the government of Quebec to rescue the automotive industry in Quebec.

I think that this was the day the federal government decided to shut the file. As proof, I have all of the contacts made with Brian Tobin, which were not acted on.

Furthermore, labour representatives from the CAW in Boisbriand met with the former minister for Quebec, Mr. Gagliano, and with the minister for the regions at the time, who is now the Minister of Justice. The ministers were rather cavalier about the whole thing, saying “This is GM's decision, there is nothing we can do about it. It is not our problem”. They were like Pontius Pilate; they washed their hands of the whole thing.

None of the federal ministers, including the current Minister of Industry, have done a thing about the GM Boisbriand matter, nor have any of the federal Liberal members from Quebec. Look through the papers. Let us ask ourselves the question. Why such a lack of action, such lack of interest on the part of the federal government? Why?

I am sure that the Prime Minister has positioned his government on this issue by saying “Ontario has the auto industry, Quebec has the aerospace industry”. This is a quote from the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister wanted to be logical, Quebec would have 24% of the entire Canadian auto industry, not 5% as is now the case, because Ontario has 95% of the auto industry and 24% of the aerospace industry as well. If one wants to be logical, if Ontario has the auto industry and Quebec has the aerospace industry, let us give 24% of the auto industry to Quebec, because Ontario has 24% of the aerospace industry. Where is the logic?

It is completely unacceptable that Quebec has such a small share of the auto industry. If the federal government does not do something now, Quebec's share will drop to 0% in August, while Ontario's share will rise to 100%. That is fair!

Never in their efforts to keep the plant alive did GM trade unionists threaten any boycotting. They sat down with GM's directors to look for solutions to the problem. They travelled all around Quebec to make the public aware of the terrible economic impact closing the plant would have.

They also won the firm support of 600 towns and cities in Quebec, of over 60,000 petitioners and of over 1.7 million union members. During the next election, I am going to remind those 1.7 million union members what this government did.

It is perfectly clear to everybody that the auto industry is going to Ontario. The proof is simple. Union president Buzz Hargrove said “It is essential that the federal government develop a new auto industry policy for Canada, recognizing Ontario is central to any new policy”.

In conclusion, the GM affair is proof to me that the federal government is robbing Quebec to benefit the other provinces. It is high time that Quebec became a sovereign nation.

[Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, April 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has repeatedly boasted about its anti-terrorism measures. However, a temporary directive from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, dated March 26, 2001, and telling customs officers not to intercept persons on a customs lookout or likely to be armed, is still in effect.

Despite the extensive changes and the billions of dollars in spending announced after the events of September 11, does it seem right that we still let criminals cross our borders?

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 14th, 2001]

A hot potato.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for having got carried away and allowing my frustration to show.

I would like the member to comment on the notorious sleight of hand in the Minister of Finance's budget with respect to corporate taxes, when he says that the government will be deferring the installment payments of small businesses for the months of January, February and March 2002 for six months in order to help them with their immediate cash flow needs. The government says that this will mean a shortfall of $2 billion. But on April 1, it will say that—

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments for the learned, or formerly learned, member opposite.

I am very surprised when I hear the members opposite say that those nasty separatists from Quebec are asking for additional tax points.

Does the learned member opposite think that Jean Charest, the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, is a nasty separatist? Is that what he thinks Mario Dumont, leader of the ADQ, is? For they too are asking that tax points be transferred.

The member opposite should get out of his ivory tower in Toronto and come to Quebec to see what this morning's papers, the Gazette , La Presse , and so on, have to say. All of them must be separatist papers, because they are critical of the federal government's budget. The federal government has generated its surplus on the backs of the poor, the unemployed, and women, and by cutting social transfer payments. That, dear learned colleague, is the sad reality.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am only too glad to hear what the member for Drummond has to say, for she is someone who knows what she is talking about.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Quebecois—and not just the Bloc but the Auditor General of Canada as well—has long been critical of this Minister of Finance who, without any scruples, helps himself to the money in the EI fund in order to supplement his revenues.

What does my charming colleague from Drummond have to say about that?

[Committees of the House, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Champlain, who did a great job.

Are the forms available, so that I can bring them to my riding to distribute them to the seniors whom I might find?

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-397, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (support payments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be allowed to speak to this bill. I want to take a few moments to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke who agreed to support this bill.

Unfortunately, it is with a lot of bitterness that I rise to speak to Bill C-397, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. In fact, my bill is aimed at amending only one section, section 118 of the Income Tax Act dealing with child deductions.

I am disappointed because I believe that this bill should have been votable. I believe so, since the required tests for making a bill votable are, first, that the bill be written clearly and effectively. My bill and I am convinced that you have read it entirely, is very clear and effective.

The second test is that the bill must be under federal jurisdiction. This is just common sense. If it were not under federal jurisdiction, I would not be here today discussing it.

The third test is that the bill should deal with a matter that is clearly in the public interest. That will be my main point in my remarks and, naturally I will emphasize the merits of my bill.

There should be a clear interest. In this case, it is more than clear because, after I introduced my bill, the justice minister sent to all members and senators a summary of the report of the federal, provincial, territorial family law committee. This report mentioned child custody, access and support for Canadian children. I will refer to this report several times in my remarks.

I am sorry that this bill is not votable. I have hundreds of cases of Canadian and Quebec citizens, mothers and fathers, who asked me to correct certain injustices in the present legislation. I am all the more sorry because my bill, as I indicated, does exactly what is being requested in the report: parents who share parental responsibility—we no longer say shared custody—should have a tax deduction that is proportional to the number of days they have custody of the child.

For a parent to be considered to have parental responsibility, he or she must have custody during at least 100 days in a year before he or she can claim a certain percentage of child care expenses for the days he or she has custody, and benefit from tax deductions in his or her income tax return.

Let us take, for example, my own situation. I have joint custody of my children during weekends. On the basis of 52 weekends, I have custody of my children during 104 days. Therefore, I could deduct 104/365ths of the costs incurred for the custody of my children.

Unfortunately, divorce and separation occur much too frequently these days. We are living in the year 2001. It is a fact that divorce and separation are commonplace occurrences. Frequently when parents divorce or separate they try to avoid litigation, to not traumatize their children and make them suffer.

Unfortunately, money matters are always the most contentious issues between parents and are often the cause of disputes. This is why I think the Income Tax Act as it now stands is unfair. Why could we not allow a parent who has joint custody of a child or who shares parental responsibility to deduct a portion of the costs incurred for the custody of the children?

Unfortunately, since this bill has not been declared votable, my remarks are only idle chatter. I most sincerely hope that the finance minister, and I intend to pressure him on this, will in the name of equity and parental responsibility take my bill under his wing and amend section 118 of the present legislation.

I will stop here. I know that my 15 minute period is not over, but I nevertheless will stop here because I am very disappointed, of course, that this bill has not been declared votable. Most of all, I am very sad for all the parents who thought that I could succeed in pushing forward this issue and convince the government to forward to the present as in the year 2001 unfortunately divorce and separation occur too frequently.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having listened so carefully to my speech. I want to take this opportunity to wish you and your family as well as the people of my riding a happy holiday season, much happiness and, most of all, peace.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments for the hon. member from Nova Scotia, a province which she seems really fond of, and remind her that the problem with the Grand Canyon of the east is similar to the one that we experienced in Quebec. I am referring to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

We had a similar problem and, in 1997, the federal and Quebec governments passed mirror legislation creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation resulted in the establishment of the first marine conservation area in Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that this type of legislation, which is unique to Quebec and Canada, this partnership with Quebec, could be a solution to the problem, by preventing the federal government from getting involved in a provincial matter? I wonder if the hon. member would comment on this.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. I have a question in connection with his last remarks.

Is this concern over the federal-provincial transfer unique to Quebec or is it a general concern of the other provinces?