Gilles-A. Perron

[Canada Labour Code, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I hope that you are listening carefully, along with the minister and all the women in the House, because it is to the ladies that I am speaking. The gentlemen may leave because I am addressing the ladies.

The fact that the party across the way wants to withdraw the Bloc Quebecois' amendment is quite simply disgraceful and unacceptable for women. Over 50% of women and mothers work. Of these, over 50% are pregnant or nursing their newborns.

The Bloc Quebecois member's amendment, which was passed in committee and approved by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, has been withdrawn. The result will be two classes of women in Canada—those covered by Quebec's labour legislation and those covered by the Canada Labour Code.

What do the women who are covered by the Quebec legislation get? What does the Quebec legislation provide for women who get pregnant while working in Quebec? As soon as they get pregnant, and upon receiving a note from their doctor, the employer must, if these women work in an unsafe environment, relocate them to a workplace that is safe for their health and that of the foetus.

This is important. It means that we take care of a pregnant woman and her foetus. Companies are required to relocate the new mother to a workplace that is safe and that will not compromise her health and that of the foetus. What happens if the company cannot relocate the expectant mother? She is told to go home and look after her pregnancy, her foetus and her health. A mother is important and so is a newborn. “You take care of yourself. Moreover, during your whole pregnancy and after, we will pay you 90% of your net salary”. In Quebec, we encourage working mothers to have children.

What does the Canadian legislation provide for women in the rest of Canada and Quebec women who are governed by it? It says “Listen, you are pregnant. That is great. If you cannot work, go home. We will give you about 50% of your salary”. However, it is not all women who can benefit from that treatment. Only those who have worked over 700 hours qualify under the Canadian legislation. This is a terrible shame.

I would like to have the attention of the minister, because the women in the Liberal Party should fight to get the Bloc Quebecois' amendment passed. Without this amendment, we end up back with the two tiered system. There is the Quebec legislation that may not be perfect but that leans toward perfection and the Canadian legislation that pushes women and mothers backwards. This is unacceptable to me, a man. How can you, Madam Speaker, and the women members sitting here, find this acceptable? It is, quite simply, unacceptable. The members should think twice about it. Their solidarity is necessary. I ask all women members to join with us and vote in favour of the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois on behalf of all their Canadian and Quebec sisters who work and who are mothers or future mothers.

In closing, we must not forget that this concerns some 50% of the Canadian population. According to Statistics Canada, some 50% of women are in the labour force. If Liberal members have something to say to their caucus, to Cabinet or to the minister, who appears to be a good grandmother and mother, but seems more interested in chatting than in listening to the important things I have to say, they should say it.

I ask that the minister use her influence to get the Bloc Quebecois amendment passed.

[Alternative School Liberté-Jeunesse, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the student parliament of alternative school Liberté-Jeunesse are honouring us by their presence in the gallery today.

These young people are distinguishing themselves through their volunteer efforts to improve their school. They are also involved in raising money to help them organize a variety of social activities in their community and to travel abroad.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of one parent, Jean-Paul Piquette, and thank him for his involvement, and of my favourite teacher, my daughter Nicole. Congratulations, you young people, keep up the good work, you are cool stuff.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a few words before I start my remarks on Bill S-3.

On Sunday, we will be celebrating Mother's Day across Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy Mother's Day to my mother, my wife, all the mothers in my riding, in Quebec and in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will join me in wishing a happy Mother's Day to your mother.

Let us now revert to less serious matters, namely Bill S-3. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to income tax treaties between Canada and other countries. Therefore, we will support this bill, inasmuch as such treaties are aimed at ensuring the just and fair tax treatment of persons—I stress this word, which includes private persons and corporate persons such as companies, trusts and any aggregate of individuals—to encourage trade and investment in those countries.

Although tax conventions avoid double taxation on corporate and personal income, in a number of cases they are a source of problems and tax evasion.

Indeed, although the most recent treaties, which are based the OECD model, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older ones with countries considered tax havens because their individual and corporate tax rates are low, or non-existent.

By signing tax treaties with these countries that are considered tax havens, Canada is turning a blind eye. It treats these profits as if they had been taxed at comparable rates abroad and does not tax them when they are brought back to Canada.

I should point out that, since 1992, the auditor general has raised this issue on several occasions. I want to give an example of these tax havens and what they allow Canadians to do.

Let us consider the case of Canada Steamship Lines. We know that, before 1981, that company operated solely in Canada and, therefore, paid its fair share of taxes. In 1981, our dear Minister of Finance bought CSL and opened subsidiaries in Bermuda, Liberia and Barbados. We know that those three countries have signed agreements with Canada and are considered tax havens.

For instance, Liberia is described by people involved in international trade as the safest tax haven, the best there is. That is nothing to be proud of. Apparently, a Liberian company can do anything as it pleases, and in total secrecy. Liberia has no tax on profits from shipping. The government of that country only requires shipping companies to pay an annual flat amount of $350 U.S. That means that profits made in Liberia are subject to $350 flat tax and nothing more.

CSL, Canada Steamship Lines, also has subsidiaries in Bermuda. Everyone knows that there is no income tax in Bermuda. A company can, through a contract, be exempted of any taxes until the year 2016.

In Barbados, companies are subject to a decreasing local tax, from 2.5% down to 1%. So, the higher the amount, the lower the tax rate.

This brings me back to the fact that the government opposite should continue to sign tax treaties with countries that are not considered to be tax havens. It should spend money and be serious, so as to be in a position to readjust or change the contracts or agreements already signed with tax haven countries, since these involve millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars in tax losses for Canada.

We know how much that government has cut in social transfers to the provinces. It could certainly recover these amounts and put them back in the transfers to the provinces.

Tax treaties establish what is called reciprocal treatment between countries with respect to income tax, provided that tax rates for Canadian businesses and those in the countries with which tax treaties are signed are equivalent or more or less comparable.

I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill S-3, which seeks to ensure a fair and equitable tax treatment for residents and non-residents, and to promote trade and investments between the countries that are parties to these conventions.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this very popular and trendy matter, and on the motion by my colleague from Louis-Hébert.

My colleague has done a tremendous job on this issue of genetically modified organisms. She is really qualified for this type of work. As we all know, she was the first woman in Quebec to graduate as a professional agrologist. She should be congratulated for her efforts and for her pioneering work at the beginning of her career.

She is very well informed on that subject. She has travelled all over the province, consulting people in every region. She held a town hall meeting in my beautiful riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, which I attended. There were about 50 people in attendance. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Daniel Goyer, from the UPA, and Mrs. Monique Paquette, from the local agricultural training center. They both helped me to prepare this consultation process.

Amongst the 50 participants, there were farmer-producers, teachers, researchers, officials from the agricultural training center, formerly known as the Agricultural College, and organic farmers.

I have to admit that the discussion was slow to start, but we soon found out that everybody was interested in the matter of genetically modified organisms. All the participants showed concern about that.

The major concerns were coming from the big producers in my riding. They were wondering what would become of the land if they used genetically modified foods or products. They asked if they would be able to plant something other than wheat in two or three years. There is definitely a fear of so-called terminators.

The big producers said they felt compelled by Monsanto and other companies to use modified products, because if they did not, their next-door neighbour or someone over in the next riding would. Production costs vary greatly. With the terminators, there is no more need for pesticides, there is almost no need for spraying and one gets a yield.

Following that consultation and the story published in the local papers, I received hundreds and hundreds of telephone calls at my office. As a matter, the local journalists had done a great job. I tabled a petition in this regard in the House, signed by people who supported the motion by my hon. colleague for Louis-Hébert.

The petitioners asked that people at least be in a position to know what they were eating, to know at least whether the products they use contain GMOs.

The main concerns of the people who attended the meeting held in my riding, as my colleague for Louis-Hébert could confirm, could be summed up with these questions. Why are we genetically modifying plants, foods, organisms? Who benefits from that modification, the companies, the producers or the consumers? What are the benefits and the disadvantages for the producers? What impact do GMOs have on public health and on my own health? What are the issues revolving around this new type of farming and traditional farming?

Speaking of traditional farming, I want to digress to ask a question. Since the government over there is supposedly going to invest so much into research on genetically modified foods, is there still going to be money left for research on traditional farming? That is a question I have.

What are the effects of GMOs on the environment? What are the social consequences of the introduction of GMOs?

The 50 people that got together that evening had so many concerns that our meeting at a sugar shack, which should have lasted about two hours, from 7.30 to 9.30 p.m., as my colleague will recall, was still going on at 10.30 p.m. The discussion ran until 1.30 a.m., and the people of the community, farmers and the people involved in agricultural training, voiced all manner of concerns.

These were not ordinary people. They were people involved hands-on every day, the farmers of my riding, the berry producers, the field crop producers, the cattle farmers. I must also thank the presidents of most of the unions affiliated with the UPA in my region, who were also present and voiced many concerns.

As I was saying, this meeting raised a lot of questions in my mind. I am not necessarily against genetically modified foods. I am not opposed to the project. Before it is introduced widely into the market, however, the research would have to be more focussed and more detailed. I as a citizen would need to have a least some small idea of what the impact on my health might be.

I think that my colleague's motion calls for the minimum as far as the GMO issue is concerned, which is the labelling of the products on our grocery store shelves according to whether or not they contain genetically modified organisms.

I call upon all my colleagues, regardless of party affiliation, to support the motion by my colleague from Louis-Hébert, because this is, in my opinion, an issue with very considerable repercussions.

Right now, the Europeans are calling for the contents of products to be identified on the labels. Will Quebec and Canadian producers not end up having their products boycotted in five, ten or fifteen years, as was the case with asbestos? We could not sell our products in Europe or even in the U.S. If I am not mistaken, I think that the Americans are in the process of seeing to the identification of genetically modified products.

This is a worrisome question. We politicians, we MPs, will have to consider it and try to be as reasonable as possible. The first step is labelling foods we find everyday on the store shelves.

[Cultural Industry, May 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I wish to salute the workers of the entire world, and the working men and women of Quebec and of Canada, on this May 1, International Workers Day.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to debate the motion by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Motion No. 259 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.

The objective of this motion by the hon. member for Kamploops, Thompson and Highland Valley is certainly most praiseworthy. We in the Bloc Quebecois made the same comment, moreover, in the dissenting Canadian heritage committee report.

It is true that the financial situation of creative people, regardless of their level of education, is precarious, indeed very precarious. We are all aware that, according to Statistics Canada, 58% of our artists need an income supplement in order to survive.

Although Motion No. 259 is most praiseworthy, the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support it in its present form, for the following reasons.

We are of the opinion that it is inadequate and liable to lead the people and the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada to believe that there are two classes of people as far as income tax is concerned.

We also feel that the measure proposed is not targeted sufficiently, and will be hard to apply. For example, who will be able to claim the status of artist?

This motion is unfair toward certain other workers who would not have the opportunity to have an automatic exemption on $30,000 of their income.

Moreover, this motion leads us to believe that this measure will also benefit the small proportion of artists whose incomes are very high.

The Bloc Quebecois would be prepared to support this motion if it were amended to include the following, for example: harmonization by the federal government of its tax system with that of the Government of Quebec, which provides that royalty income of less than $15,000 is not taxable; action by the government on the recommendation by the Standing Committee on Finance that income averaging be permitted for cultural workers, a measure that existed in the 1970s and exists today for professional athletes; equity for all taxpayers, with an increase in the level of tax threshold. In Quebec, the tax threshold is a lot higher than at the federal level.

I would like to give you a few examples. In the case of a two income couple with two children, the tax threshold for 2000 at the federal level is $14,392 and in Quebec it is $31,677. In the case of a single parent with one child, the federal tax threshold is $14,124, whereas the Quebec threshold is $21,764. For a senior less than 65 years of age, the federal figure is $7,464 and the Quebec one is $10,884.

By adjusting its tax threshold to that of the Government of Quebec, the federal government would promote a situation that would benefit artists and all of the people of Quebec and Canada.

I invite my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to amend his motion in the way I have set out, and the Bloc Quebecois will be proud to support it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chicoutimi on his vision and I have a question for him.

Does he not think that a way to put an end to the abuse by the government opposite would be for the provinces themselves to be responsible for collecting both federal and provincial taxes?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on December 1, 2009.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on February 1, 2007.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is seven years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is five years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is one year after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is seven years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”