Gilles-A. Perron

[Employee Benefits, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to intervene in connection with Motion No. 401 by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees.

I would like to take a few moments to dissect the motion, starting with the first part calling for the sums paid into pension plans or employee benefit plans to be considered deferred wages.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are naturally in favour of the motion. We are not at all bothered by considering the employee portion of pension plans or benefit plans deferred salaries.

In professional sport, that is how the multimillionaire players get deferred salaries years after retirement. These people are, it must be kept in mind, earning millions of dollars a year. They are not our average wage earners.

Another part of the motion I think it important to address is the part about these pension plans remaining the exclusive property of employees. If the motion had been law, I think it would have prevented certain unscrupulous governments from dipping into pension plans and EI funds.

I am sure the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who is the Bloc Quebecois' EI critic, would agree that employers and employees own Canada's EI fund.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre explained so clearly, this would resolve many decades long legal disputes. One particular case that comes to mind is that of Singer, an American company which manufactured sewing machines.

One fine day it decided to shut down its Saint-Jean plant, cross the border and leave for the United States, taking with it the employees' pension fund. It took years to resolve the problem in the courts, so many years that most of those entitled to draw pensions under the plan had died by the time the case was settled. The majority of them had died and those still living were 80 or 85 years old and had only a few more years left to benefit from the pension fund to which they themselves had contributed.

Clearly, we agree completely with the motion put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

In conclusion, however, I find it unfortunate that the motion is not votable. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[Customs Act, October 24th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important bill, Bill S-23.

First of all, I must say that I will not be using the 40 minutes allotted me, nor will I be inviting the member for Wild Rose to share my time.

As I was saying, Bill S-23 is an important bill. It is vitally important but, unfortunately, it does not seem to interest my colleagues in the House.

What needs to be understood is that we must at all costs improve the flow of goods and people, as well as the movement of travellers through customs at the Canadian and U.S. borders, but still maintain complete security.

It must also be recalled that, since 1991, the number of vehicles crossing the border has increased by 11% a year because of free trade and various other factors.

In order to illustrate just how much transportation has changed in recent years, I will give a few statistics for the year ending August 2001. They are quite recent.

The number of vehicles crossing border points using bridges or tunnels between Canada and the United States between August 2000 and August 2001 was 45,587,344 automobiles, 8,306,261 trucks and 348,639 buses, for a total of 52,242,244 vehicles in all.

The Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor was crossed by 8,592,000 vehicles, 3,332,960 of them trucks. I could go on.

I did not do the math, because I did not have a calculator. With the volume of trucks and cars regularly crossing the border, —I would estimate that this comes to over 50,000 cars a day using the tunnels or bridges between Canada and the United States alone. I did not check the other border points.

Hence the importance of rapid and effective movement and good service at border points, so as not to hold up truckers and motorists for hours on end. Hence the importance of seeing the real danger that exists in transporting people: There must be security for people and for goods. Just about anything can be taken past these border points.

Despite a few reservations, the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill S-23.

Bill S-23 is more than just sheets of paper, more than words or a wish list. It is a bill. What is important? To be able to implement the provisions of this bill. A piece of legislation with no one to enforce it is worthless. We need bodies. Canada needs more customs officers. The number of customs officers must absolutely be raised because of the heavy car and truck traffic going through customs.

As well, customs officers must be better trained in order to enhance their skills and enable them to do their job better. They must be provided with modern techniques. The Minister of Revenue referred to iris readers to identify people. Is this wishful thinking or reality?

This is why we presented an amendment at the report stage asking the minister to come before the Standing Committee on Finance a year after the bill is enacted to tell us “This or that thing is not going at all well, can it be changed?” Thought must be given to the conditions in which we have been living since September 11. If things were normal, perhaps nothing would have to be changed, but the conditions are far more serious.

The other question I have is this: how are our neighbours to the south, our American neighbours, going to see Bill S-23? Only this past weekend, hon. members will recall, New York state Senator Clinton was at Champlain, which is very close to Montreal. She spoke of a total perimeter for all of the Americas, with customs control and points of entry and exit at customs. That is not the position of the government across the way.

It is time to start thinking of a common ground. All we need is modern and efficient equipment, adequate numbers of staff and staff that is efficient and well trained, as well as a rapid information exchange system among all departments, in order to determine precisely which individuals are considered a low, medium or high risk. Customs officers must have the tools and information right at hand in order to function effectively. Otherwise, the paper on which Bill S-23 is written will merit nothing more than a fast trip to the round file, file 13.

I hope with all my heart that Bill S-23 will successfully improve border crossings and border security. The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting this bill.

[Customs Act, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-23, although I would have appreciated it if the revenue minister had been here to listen to the concerns of the opposition about this legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-23 and will be voting for it.

Unfortunately, in light of the events of September 11, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking extra protection by putting forward amendments to ensure that the government will sit down again with the Standing Committee on Finance at the end of the year to review the scope and the enforcement of the legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the services being set up through this bill to be improved upon. It also wants businesses and travellers to respect the regulations that could be made under this bill.

However, we do have some concerns, since we know that all these new Customs measures to expedite the movements of persons and goods and to streamline the security procedures will be taken by regulations. We feel this leaves the minister with a lot of discretionary power.

I will not repeat the arguments raised by my hon. colleagues from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Verchères—Les Patriotes and Rosemont—Petite Patrie, who have so eloquently spoken to this bill. I simply want to thank all opposition parties who said they would support the Bloc amendments.

To conclude, I will say once again that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill S-23, but not without some major reservations.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (support payments).

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill will allow parents having joint custody of their children to claim basic deductions proportionally and equitably.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my first speech to the House since the tragic events of September 11, I would like to take a few moments to extend my most sincere condolences to the people who have been saddened by this terrible event, on behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille--Îles, the people of Quebec and of Canada. I wish to assure them that they are in our hearts, in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Moving now to Bill S-23 which was passed by the Senate on June 7, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill provided certain major amendments are passed.

I would remind hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the movement of goods and services between countries, and of free trade. The proof of this is, in fact, that the government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois were the first to approve NAFTA under the Mulroney government. At that time, I would also remind hon. members, our friends across the way were against it.

The Bloc Quebecois and the government of Quebec were also in favour of the open skies project. They are in favour of the FTAA. The Bloc Quebecois has always been a supporter of free trade, provided individuals' rights and culture are always respected.

I will discuss the background of Bill S-23. This bill started out as a draft bill in the fall of 1998 when Revenue Canada, which has now become the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, published a discussion paper entitled “Customs Blueprint”.

In that document the department pledged first to improve the services provided; second, to ensure that businesses and travellers comply with the regulations; third, to identify efforts to end illegal activities and threats to health and safety; fourth, to promote certainty and consistency for travellers and business people.

Following this discussion paper the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency released the customs action plan for the years 2000-04. Customs new approach is based on a comprehensive risk management system that integrates the principles of self-assessment and information collection, as well as special authorizations regarding the main following features: processing techniques based on risks for travellers and business people; streamlined processes when risks are low; more thorough processes when risks are greater or when they are unknown.

Can we include in the unknown risks the new unknown risk for everyone posed by terrorism? I think so. As for the second principle, it was based on a fair and effective sanctions system.

I agree that this new approach is good in itself and implements a way of doing cross-border trading and travel much more expeditiously. It should be noted that the bill seems more geared to Canada-United States transportation. More importantly though, it could be adjusted to international travel in the near or not too distant middle future. I do not remember seeing any mention of marine transport in the bill, but we should start thinking about it.

This bill can therefore be summed up as follows: first, it provides for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada; second, it provides for streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information; third, it provides for new requirements in respect of the provision of information obtained under that act; fourth, it provides for monetary penalties in respect of designated contraventions; fifth, it extends the deadline for requesting reviews and appeals beyond current time limits; sixth, it harmonizes provisions for the collection of amounts owing under that act with those of the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act; seventh, it makes technical and housekeeping amendments; and eighth, it makes related amendments to other acts.

But let us be prudent. I would like the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to be very prudent. My question this morning is this: Will Bill S-23 address all the shortcomings identified by the auditor general in his April 11, 2000 report with respect to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency? Let us again look at what the auditor general said in his report.

We found that risk assessment is incomplete: Customs does not have important information it needs from a variety of departments and agencies to fully assess the risks its inspectors face. It needs to know where the risks are highest so it can determine the best way to control them. We have recommended that Customs work more diligently to obtain information on the risks arising from the responsibilities it carries out at ports of entry on behalf of other departments—Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example—and include them in its national risk assessment. It also needs to have up-to-date memoranda of understanding with those departments, setting out their respective roles and responsibilities.

This is a bit worrisome.

Another aspect of this legislation concerns us considerably, and I refer to mail searches. The bill provides a means for searches of all mail of more than 30 grams in weight. This is disturbing because it is a form of interfering with people's fundamental rights. When the bill was under consideration in Senate committee, the Canadian bar submitted an excellent brief on March 15, 2001 and I invite the Minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to note the position taken by the Canadian Bar Association. The points it makes are certainly important.

In closing, one point in this bill is of concern. It is the power accorded the minister. The bill also contains many regulations. Most of the points of law will be resolved by regulations.

The minister will have to define and make public the regulations he intends to make on security at Canadian customs so that they may be debated here.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the law. Indeed, goods and people must be expedited through customs, but not at all cost. I think the minister will have to make certain changes to his bill for us to support it completely.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.

[Canadian Customs, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister describes his bill as a canvas on which he will outline his plan to modernize customs. This is worrisome.

Would it not be wise for the minister, before going any further, to define and make public the safety regulations that he has in mind for Canada customs, in order to allow parliamentarians the opportunity to debate them?

[Canadian Customs, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23, which aims to facilitate international trade, will require, among other things, freer circulation of persons and goods.

Does the Minister of Revenue agree that the bill should be amended in light of the situation created by the September 11 attack?

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment that may be somewhat off topic.

I find it quite deplorable that the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis would be screaming from behind the curtains and does not even have the courage to take his place and ask questions.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his speech and I would like to hear what he has to say about the money the federal government owes Quebec.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today.

I am saddened by the attitude of the government for the umpteenth time, if not the 69th, 70th, 72nd or 75th time, is gagging the opposition. This morning a time allocation motion was agreed to. It is always a little sad to see the government refuse to listen or have an indepth debate on a bill.

If the Bloc Quebecois has been so steadfast in its opposition to the bill it is not for the mere pleasure of playing its role as an opposition party. Everyone has certainly noticed how relentlessly and how hard my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm has being working on this for the past year and a half or two years. I take this opportunity to acknowledge his perseverance and the unique work he has been doing on this bill. My colleague has travelled across the province of Quebec. He has met with various people. He has discussed the bill with every stakeholder in Quebec, bar none.

Once again, we have compelling arguments but the justice minister refuses to hear them. The current Young Offenders Act has been in force in Quebec for close to 30 years. So far, it has been successful because it has been properly implemented. The government should ensure that the act is correctly enforced in the rest of Canada instead of trying, as the minister is doing, to go along with a far right trend coming mostly from western Canada.

I understand that being from the west she is trying to hang on to some votes. I hope this is not the only reason why the justice minister is not more attentive to the 23 groups mentioned by my colleague for Repentigny. I have here the list of these 23 groups in Quebec but I will not name them all.

They are among others the Centrale de l'enseignement, the Conseil permanent des jeunes, the Commision des services juridiques, the Assocation des centres-jeunesse, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux. There is also the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, and the Child Welfare League of Canada.

They all support the Bloc in its opposition to Bill C-7. These are not people with grey hair like you and I, Mr. Speaker, these are people who work with young people on a daily basis. What should people with grey hair do? They should look at what is going to happen to young persons.

We sould think about it. It could be our grandchildren who we will be sending to the school for crime at 14 years of age by throwing them in jail. We will be sending them to the school for crime. It is a shame to send our young people to the school for crime.

If the Young Offenders Act were applied properly in the rest of Canada, as it is in Quebec, people would see a 23% drop in the youth crime rate. Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in Canada because it has applied the current legislation properly using the available tools.

The youth crime rate in Quebec is still too high, with 500 young offenders per 10,000 youths, compared to 900 young offenders per 10,000 youths in the rest of Canada.

Throwing our children in jail is not the answer. It will not help. We must look closely to see why a youth has gone down that path and what we should do to help him instead of giving him a criminal record. We must help him instead of making him a criminal for the rest of his life.

As a young father, the member for Berthier—Montcalm understands that. When he studied this piece of legislation, he looked at the future of his young children: his daughter who is about 10 years old and who is a skater, and his son who is about 12 years old. If one of these children had the misfortune to commit an offence, how could we get them out of this mess? Certainly not with the Minister of Justice's Bill C-7.

There is a consensus in Quebec. A motion was brought forward last week and agreed to unanimously. It tells the minister that if she wants to win votes in western Canada, her law sould apply there, but that she sould exempt Quebec from legislation that will only more criminals in our prisons. That is what Bill C-7 is all about. That is the ultimate goal of Bill C-7.

In closing, at the beginning of March, not too long ago, I received a letter from Geneviève Tavernier, the secretary of the ASRSQ, an association dealing with criminals.

I will read this letter so that members can understand properly. I hope the members opposite, as well as those to my right and to my left, will listen. It reads as follows:

Although specializing in dealing adults in trouble with the law, the volunteers and professionals belonging to our association are interested in the situation of the young offenders and are well aware of the needs of the youth at risk. This is why our association studied Bill C-7.

We are calling on you today to reiterate our opposition to Bill C-7. We remain part of the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs.

It is on the basis of our great expertise in the area of criminal justice for adults that we want to raise awareness regarding the pitfalls of this bill.

The letter goes on to say:

As the Coalition has said, and as we have also said regarding other bills, we are convinced that the legislative elements contained in this bill promote the categorization of crimes by creating automatic reactions that will have a major impact on the way these people are dealt with. It is important to understand that the nature of the offence does not always reflect the offender's true personality.

There are three more pages I could read, but the only thing that I would like to say in closing is: Let us think about it. Let us not make criminals out of our youth. Let us not send our youth to the university for crime for no good reason.