Gilles-A. Perron

[Income Tax Act, May 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses).

The purpose of this bill is to allow a taxpayer a deduction for expenses of up to $7,000 related to the adoption of a child when computing his or her income for a taxation year.

I remind the House that my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, introduced a bill almost identical to this one in 1998.

Another bill, Bill C-289, was introduced in September 2000 by the same Alliance member, but it died on the order paper when the election was called.

It is therefore a bill my party the Bloc Quebecois and I support.

As we know, adoption is a provincial responsibility. However, the lack of participation on the part of the federal government creates a grey area for adoptive parents.

Indeed, why would the federal government, which has no qualms about interfering in many areas under provincial jurisdiction, not intervene efficiently in the area of adoption?

A federal tax deduction would not only be a welcome incentive for adoptive parents, but would also make the tax system fairer.

Biological parents are covered under the health insurance plan for prenatal and postnatal care whereas adoptive parents must pay out of their own pocket the full cost of an adoption.

It is odd that the costs of in vitro fertilization are deductible when the costs of adopting a child are not. This is neither fair nor wise on the part of the federal government.

The Quebec government estimates that an international adoption costs the adoptive parents an average of $20,000. Children of the World, one of the largest Canadian adoption agencies, estimates the cost of adopting a child in China at $17,000 per couple. These figures include expenses in Quebec and in China.

The bill should allow taxpayers to deduct from their income the child adoption expenses, not by an amount not exceeding $7,000, but by double that amount.

The federal government should recognize, as Quebec does, the important social contribution of adoptive parents to our society. It has been observed that half of Canadian adoptions are to Quebec families. This is in part due to the fact that Quebec's family policy is far more progressive than that of the federal government.

Adoptive parents face special expenses, particularly in the case of private and international adoptions. I know whereof I speak. Thirty-two years ago, my wife and I adopted a child.

Many couples who want to adopt a child think about it twice because of all the expenses it entails, which is where this bill comes in.

For almost nine years now, Quebec has undergone a change quite unique in the western world. Every year, between 700 and 800 children from all over the world finally find in Quebec a family to adopt them. It obviously would have made adoption easier if the adoptive parents had been able to deduct from their income, at the federal level, the child adoption expenses.

We cannot talk about adoption without talking about family. In Quebec, we are proud to have an integrated and comprehensive family policy. This policy includes among other things a tax credit for adoption expenses, family allowance benefits and the development of educational services and day care for young children, what is commonly known as the $5 a day day care. Quebec is also developing a parental insurance program based on the needs of families in Quebec.

In short, it is obvious that the federal government is 20 years behind in this area. By quickly passing this bill, it would at least be taking a step in the right direction.

In closing, I deplore the fact that this bill is not votable.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent of the House to allow my friend, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, to carry on with his speech.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have addressed the House during this parliament, I am sure that you will permit me a small aside.

I wish to thank the 50% of the voters in the lovely riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles who voted for me in the last election and to assure the other 50% who did not that I am still their MP and I will represent everyone in my riding, regardless of how they cast their ballot.

Second, I especially wish to thank the volunteers, who played a big role in my getting elected, as you know from your own personal experience, Madam Speaker. It is thanks to the work of your volunteers and mine, who worked their hearts out, that we have a seat in this House.

Third, I wish to welcome the new recruits, particularly my friend, the member for Châteauguay. He will find the House a place of wonderful experiences.

Fourth, I would ask you to pass on a message to the Speaker and to all your colleagues who were elected and appointed. I am certain that you will do a splendid, non-partisan job, and that you will ensure that we pay careful attention to the rules and procedures under which we must operate. Madam Speaker, I thank you in advance for the work you will do.

Now for the main topic. As everyone knows, I rise this morning to address Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions.

I will begin by giving a brief background to the bill. It will be recalled that the MacKay report was tabled in 1998. My colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, was a key player, suggesting some interesting amendments.

However, although we supported Bill C-38 in theory, subject to certain amendments, there was an exchange of correspondence with Quebec's then finance minister, Bernard Landry, who is now, as everyone knows, Premier of Quebec.

However, this exchange of correspondence between the Quebec minister of finance of the day and the federal Minister of Finance went nowhere. Fortunately, Bill C-38 died on the order paper because of the call of the precipitous election in November, for wich most Canadians still doubt.

Here we are this morning debating Bill C-8, which replaces C-38. Basically, the Bloc Quebecois can live with it, so long as a number of amendments are made. We have noticed in the new C-8, which is almost identical to C-38, that a number of changes have been made as the necessary result of the exchange of correspondence between the two finance ministers.

However, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, since the concerns of the Quebec finance minister of the day, Bernard Landry, are not included in the bill. They are, rather, included in a schedule setting out guidelines for the reclassification of the banks, which had been in schedule 1 previously and whose owner's equity was less than $5 billion.

With regard to this schedule, the Bloc Quebecois has some concerns, since the schedule provides that:

—the Minister of Finance, in his sole decision, shall take into consideration, before permitting an exchange or the sale of one bank to another, the security and solidity of the bank, the direct and indirect jobs, the location of the decision-making centre and the management of the bank, the needs of consumers, the banks business and activities and the banks prospects for the future in the context of world markets.

The six points I have just outlined are just wishful thinking, since the bill would allow the current Minister of Finance, who, I believe, owns a shipping company, has adopted the practice since, of being the only master on board, like the ship's captain, when decisions are to be made. So, the minister has all the powers to ignore these six points without us being able to say or do anything about it.

Bill C-8 is much too important to allow a single individual, a single captain, that is the Minister of Finance himself, make the decisions about any changes to this legislation. This is very close to dictatorship. It is also dangerous considering that the government opposite has a great tendency to engage in cronyism and take care of its friends. We should be careful.

I strongly suggest that the final decisions be made by parliamentarians. We are here to make decisions. We are not decorating plants, we must make decisions. We must really be careful.

Another issue that is of concern to me and certainly to my friend, the hon. member for Drummond, is that the bill is three tiered with the possibility for an individual to own a bank.

It begins with large banks, that is those with equity in excess of $5 billion. The limit on individual ownership of shares is 20% of the value of the bank.

The second group includes banks with equity of one to five billion dollars, such as the National Bank, the only Quebec bank with a federal charter. Since equity for these institutions is less than $5 billion, 65% of the shares of that bank can be held by a single shareholder.

So we are back to the style of our finance minister, our great shipmaster, the only person who can decide how a bank can run itself. Will the bank defend the interests of its shareholders? Surely, since it is the majority shareholder. However, it will defend these interests to whose detriment. To the detriment of service and employees. This is cause for concern.

Then there are small institutions with less than $1 billion in equity, which can be owned 100% by one person. Unfortunately, that was not what the MacKay report recommended, as it suggested that ownership rules be changed to allow and foster the regrouping of small and medium sized financial institutions in a financial holding.

According to the MacKay report, several small financial institutions could associate and form a large bank with equity of $5 billion or more.

I see that my time is up, but I will indicate two other issues of concern to me.

First, Bill C-8 does not meet the expectations of the Bloc Quebecois about community reinvestment, not in the least. Second, it provides no protection to savers and investors.

[Taxation, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate on Motion No. 305, brought forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, asking the Government of Canada to immediately double the basic personal deduction for taxpayers over the age of 69.

It certainly is an interesting and well intentioned suggestion, since it is aimed at helping seniors maintain a good standard of living in their old age. However, I think such a measure cannot apply to all people over the age of 69 regardless of their income.

For the sake of social fairness, it is crucial that we set an income limit over which this deduction would be pointless. We could also think about a decreasing scale above the fixed ceiling.

In a report entitled A Portrait of Seniors in Canada , Statistics Canada indicates that the average income of single seniors decreases somewhat in the older age groups. In 1997, the average income from all sources for single seniors between age 65 and 69 was $21,400, compared to $19,500 for seniors 70 years of age and older. Seniors currently have access to three taxable public programs: old age security, the Canada pension plan and régime des rentes du Québec, and the guaranteed income supplement.

As in the overall population, single senior men have a significantly higher income than single senior women. In 1997, single men 65 years of age and older had an average income of $24,300, almost $6,000 more than single senior women.

Also, the income of seniors varies from province to province. In Ontario and western Canada, the income of seniors is higher than in Quebec and especially in Atlantic Canada.

To double the basic personal deduction of taxpayers 65 years of age and older would be very beneficial. However, some seniors start cashing in their RRSPs at age 70.

What would this extra money do for our seniors? Not only on a moral level would it be a sign of the state's gratefulness for its aging population, but also on a financial level it would provide a support seniors rightly deserve.

What about our senior citizens' expenses? In some cases they have medical and related expenses. At long last we would live in a society that would no longer be ungrateful to the senior citizens who have greatly contributed to the system.

Let us not forget inflation. Senior citizens' incomes do not keep up with price increases. It is wrong to believe that we have fewer needs when we grow old. It is often said that senior citizens spend less on food, clothing and entertainment. This is wrong, since like the rest of the population, senior citizens spend a significant part of their total budget on basic necessities such as food, housing, clothing and transportation.

Speaking of housing, housing costs account for a sizeable portion of the total expenses of senior citizens living on their own. In 1997, they spent over one out of every four dollars on housing. If we stay healthy, it is not our age but the lack of money that will slow us down. This extra money could make life a lot nicer for a number of our fellow citizens getting on in age.

Senior citizens make a significant contribution to society through their volunteer activities. A more generous basic personal deduction could be seen as a reimbursement for the indirect expenses incurred by elderly volunteers.

I am in favour of this motion, but the government should listen to the representations the Bloc Quebecois has been making since 1993, namely, that the tax system should be entirely overhauled. Such a reform should take those making less than $30,000 a year off the tax roll. This proposal would help not only senior citizens, but a whole category of our fellow citizens who cannot make ends meet.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Rivière des Mille-Îles is one of the most beautiful rivers in Quebec and it is located in the Montreal region. I must invite you to go down it by canoe in August. The downriver excursion is a very popular event; this year more than 4,500 people took part. My riding is along the shores of this lovely river.

Let us talk of something other than lovely rivers, even it is a whole lot more interesting to talk of Rivière des Mille-Îles than Bill C-38.

When I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs boast about how well things are going in Quebec, I realize he is not being realistic. I tell myself he is not coming to see the day-to-day situation.

His riding is located in the heart of Montreal, so where is the Minister for International Trade?

Yes, things are going well in Quebec. But if I were a federal government member or minister, I would not brag, because Quebecers are the ones who are doing all the work. Considering all the money that has been taken from the social transfers to the provinces since 1993, the minister should know that if we have a balanced budget in Quebec, it is not thanks to Ottawa's help. Heavens no.

Let us now deal with Bill C-38. It is true that I read it quickly, but I spent enough time on it to come to a conclusion. Upon reviewing this bill, I came to the conclusion that, in his proposed bank reform, the Minister of Finance is assuming, through Bill C-38, the right to be the only one to decide the future of banks in Quebec. If this is indeed the case, then it is truly worrisome.

If my interpretation of this bill is right, if the minister is assuming this right, then it is really scary.

My colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, delivered a brilliant speech, which shows that she came well prepared. Does she share my impression that the Minister of Finance is assuming the right to be the only one to decide the future of banks in Quebec?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-289, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses), introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre.

The purpose of this enactment is to allow a taxpayer to claim a deduction for expenses of up to $7,000 related to the adoption of a child when calculating his or her income for a taxation year.

I remind the House that in 1998 my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, introduced a bill similar to this one. I believe the only difference was that we were asking for a deduction of $10,000 instead of $7,000. It is the main difference between the two bills.

It is therefore a bill my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and myself support.

As we know adoption is a provincial responsibility. However the lack of participation on the part of the federal government creates a grey area for adoptive parents.

A federal tax deduction would not only be a welcome incentive for adoptive parents, but also would make the tax system fairer.

Biological parents are covered under the health insurance plan for prenatal and post-natal care whereas adoptive parents must pay out of their own pocket the full cost of an adoption.

It is odd that the costs of in vitro fertilization are deductible when the costs of adopting a child are not. This is neither fair nor wise on the part of the federal government.

Children of the World, one of the largest Canadian adoption agencies, estimates the cost of adopting a child in China at $17,270 per couple.

Two years ago, my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, adopted a little Asian girl. He has confirmed to me that the adoption expenses were over $20,000 Canadian. These figures include expenses in Quebec and in China.

At this point, I would like to tell the House about a small expense chart that Children of the World sent me. It must not be forgotten that when one wishes to adopt a child internationally, there are administrative expenses, expenses for psychological testing, for parents' birth certificates, marriage certificates, letters from physicians, notaries' fees, legal expenses, law stamps, the embassy, contacts with foreign countries, enrolling with the Canada-China adoption association, translation of files into Chinese. This mounts up to $7,422 before leaving Canada to actually adopt a child. To this must be added the expenses incurred abroad: donations to the orphanage, the fees of a notary in China, passport fees for the child one wishes to bring back, airfare and accommodation, totalling $17,270.

The federal government should recognize, as Quebec does, the important social contribution of adoptive parents in our society.

It has been observed that half of Canadian adoptions are to Quebec families. This is in part due to the fact that Quebec's family policy is far more progressive than that of the federal government.

Adoptive parents face special expenses, particularly in the case of private and international adoptions. I know whereof I speak. Thirty-two years ago, my wife and I adopted a child, Richard.

Many couples who want to adopt a child think about it twice because of all the expenses it entails, which is where this bill comes in.

For almost nine years now, Quebec has undergone a change quite unique in the western world: every year, 700 to 800 children from all over the world finally find in Quebec a family to adopt them.

It obviously would have made adoption easier if the adoptive parents were able to deduct from their income, at the federal level, the child adoption expenses, not by an amount not exceeding $7,000 as is stipulated in this bill, but by double that amount.

We cannot talk about adoption without talking about family. In Quebec, we are proud to have an integrated and comprehensive family policy. The policy includes among other things a tax credit for adoption expenses, family allowance benefits and the development of educational services and day care for young children, what is commonly known as the $5-a-day day care.

Quebec is also developing a parental insurance program based on the needs of families in Quebec.

In short, it is obvious that the federal government is 20 years behind in this area and by quickly passing this bill, it would at least be taking a step in the right direction.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-3, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with this bill, especially since the bill is inspired by relatively standard models developed by the OECD.

The member opposite said that such protocols have been signed with 75 countries. I think that is wonderful but some of these countries have old protocols of agreement that are deplorable because they do not prevent fiscal evasion, which is the second objective of the bill. This is very important. We must not lose sight of this.

Certain corporations have head offices outside Canada and pay practically no taxes on income. When these Canadian companies bring their money back into Canada, the law tells them that they have already paid taxes in the country where they do business. The money is therefore allowed into Canada without any taxes on income. There are many companies operating abroad who are paying little or no income tax there and, when they bring their money into Canada, they do not pay a cent in taxes.

I would like to give an example that members will understand. There are three countries with whom we have duly signed conventions—old models, relics—and they are Liberia, Bermuda and Barbados. These are tax havens.

In Liberia, there are no income taxes. A company doing business in Liberia with a head office there pays one amount, $350 US a year. Whether its profits are $100, $1,000 or in the billions, it pays income taxes of only $350 US.

Let us take another example: Bermuda. Under an agreement with Canada, companies will pay no income taxes until 2016.

In Barbados, companies are subject to decreasing local taxation. In other words, the more money one makes, the less income tax one pays. The maximum tax rate is 2.5 % and the minimum rate is 1%.

Why do I mention these examples? Because the Minister of Finance owns Canada Steamship Lines. I have in front of me the organization chart of Canada Steamship Lines, which I would be willing to table in the House. I see that all the subsidiary companies are located in Bermuda, in Lebanon or in Barbados. There is practically no company any more that has its head office in Canada.

What does it mean? That Canada Steamship Lines, with its head office in Bermuda and its subsidiary in Lebanon, pays almost no income tax. Profits are imported into Canada. Here we tell them “Since you already paid income tax in the countries where you are doing business, you do not have to pay any here”.

When we see that Canada has such a great need of money to invest in health care and give back to the provinces in social transfers, I think the tens of millions of dollars that our Minister of Finance is saving through his company, Canada Steamship Lines, would really be welcome in the consolidated revenue fund. You and I, Madam Speaker, with only a simple T4, are paying a lot of income tax.

Once again, I wish to point out that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-3, because it complies with the model proposed by the OECD. The Bloc Quebecois does, however, beg the government to do some serious housecleaning of all the old tax conventions it has signed with certain countries, especially those that are tax havens.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he did it maliciously or because he is misinformed, but, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said that there was an information agency in Quebec. If this is the case, I would like the member to name that information agency, because I live in Quebec and I have never heard of such an agency.

Was he mistaken or was he referring to Communication-Québec? This is a government agency that is responsible for promoting all Quebec government programs and that was responsible for providing information on federal programs until the minister took that away from Communication-Québec. He decided to go through the CIO because it was easier to manipulate than Communication-Québec. I would like the member to correct what he said or to give me the name of the agency.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.

I want to ask the Canadian Alliance member if, instead of spending some $20 million through the CIO and several millions to organize the Canada Day celebrations—I have nothing against celebrating Canada Day in Quebec and against the fact that the government refuses to give the total budget for Canada Day celebrations across the country, because I am under the impression that it spends more in Quebec than elsewhere—it would not be more appropriate to invest that money in health, education and other services for which taxpayers have a real need?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the motion introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Chambly.

I somehow sensed from his speech that the whole organization of the CIO and this structure of patronage rests on a cornerstone, and this cornerstone that seemingly received $160,000 is called Richard Mongeau.

Could our colleague from Chambly tell us who is this Richard Mongeau, what is his profession and what he is doing now, so that we know the whys and wherefores of this situation?