Gilles-A. Perron

[Bill C-28, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister did not respond to the four opposition parties' request for a special committee to investigate the apparent conflict of interest in the case of Bill C-28. He referred us to the Standing Committee on Finance, claiming that is where our questions will be answered.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance systematically refused to hear expert witnesses who could have shed light on this issue?

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, February 13, for two reasons. First, it is my mother's birthday. Happy Birthday, Philomène. Second, I strongly support my colleagues to my left, the members of the New Democratic Party.

I particularly support the tax system they are advocating. I think the Canadian tax system is unfair. Here is an example. Why is a single mother earning less than $30,000, who sends her child to daycare, able to deduct $170 per $1,000 of income while someone earning $60,000 under the same system gets a tax break of $290 per $1,000 of income, a difference of $120?

Do not give up, we are behind you. We too think the gap between the rich and the poor has to be narrowed.

[Bill C-28, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the past week, we have been asking the Minister of Finance serious questions regarding Bill C-28. Instead of getting clear answers, we heard insults and contradictory statements from the finance minister, the ethics commissioner and even the vice-president of Canada Steamship Lines.

We feel the government is playing Battleship with us. When we tried G-6, the Prime Minister got up and said “No”. The next day, we tried B-3 and the Deputy Prime Minister said “No”. But I think that in the case of C-28, the Minister of Finance should rise and say “Touché. My ship is sunk”.

We are entitled to answers. The Liberals should stop trying to take us for a ride.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

The purpose of Bill C-18 is to broaden the scope of the present powers of customs officers as far as arrest and detainment are concerned. It is in response to the necessity for enhanced control and effective intervention at Canadian customs posts. The proposed changes would affect about two-thirds of the 3,200 customs officers.

Like the other provinces sharing a border with the United States, Quebec is a target for dangerous individuals attempting to seek refuge there. There is an indisputably urgent need to reinforce border crossing points in order to intercept guilty parties.

Recent statistics from the Department of Revenue indicate that, over the past three years, 8,500 cases of suspected impaired driving, close to 200 presumed cases of child abduction, close to 2,000 persons with outstanding warrants, and more than 500 cases of persons in possession of stolen property, vehicles in particular, were apprehended. The department makes no mention of the number of people going through customs at the Canada-U.S. border with drugs and so on.

Eighty percent of these occurrences involve highway border crossing points, not ports of air or sea entry. These statistics speak volumes and justify the reinforcement of border posts, as Bill C-18 will do.

Customs officers would facilitate the role of the police through immediate intervention at the border. This would broaden the scope of custom officers' present power to arrest and detain, in order to fill a void between the time they detect an offence under the Criminal Code and the time peace officers arrive and intervene.

The proposed amendments would also enable customs officers to arrest persons for whom an arrest warrant has been issued under the Criminal Code.

In the case of individuals suspected of impaired driving, the designated officers would take a breath sample. Individuals testing high would then be handed over to the police for a breathalyser test. I wonder whether, at this point, whether they would be handed over to the RCMP or the to provincial police, in the case of Quebec. The provincial authorities would then have to continue the investigation and initiate proceedings against those presumed guilty of breaking the Criminal Code at the border.

The Bloc Quebecois and I support additional powers for customs officials. However, we first want Quebec's jurisdictions respected and then we want details from the minister on the provinces, cities and municipalities that would be affected by the changes proposed in the bill. Then, although the president of the customs officials' union has indicated his support for the bill, we want details on the terms of selection and employment of the new category of customs officers thus created, including their new responsibilities, whether the officers would be chosen from the pool of existing employees and what changes would be made to labour contracts.

In the case of Quebec, the one that interests us, we want details on the powers of these officials compared with those of the Quebec provincial police force, the RCMP and the courts involved, in particular on whether fines at customs posts in Quebec will be collected by the federal government or by the government of Quebec?

A few days ago, the Minister of Revenue sent us the second progress report on the creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency. I will take the liberty of making a few comments here, although it is related to C-18, because it is a serious matter for us Quebeckers.

I was surprised to learn the following from the fact sheet. “—the Agency's mandate is being broadened to allow it to administer a wide range of provincial tax laws and measures—”, “agency status means—more flexibility to manage its resources and operations—”, “the agency would administer provincial programs should that prove cost effective—”. This is blatant and direct interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The establishment of this agency clearly shows that the federal government is try to encroach even further on provincial jurisdictions. It is not dealing with duplication and overlap as it should, but is grabbing more and more powers from the provinces.

Quebec objected to the agency administering its programs and will stand by the position it has taken in the interest of Quebeckers.

As far as Bill C-18 is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois and I are in favour but we have serious reservations regarding the collection of fines. We will keep an eye on this government to ensure that this bill is not used as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House this afternoon to speak on Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act providing for the deduction of interest on mortgage loans, introduced by my colleague from the Reform Party, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

On the face of it, this bill looks like a good bill, in the sense that it could indeed help boost housing starts. And as the old saying has it “When home construction goes well, so goes the economy”.

The economy is going well because forestry workers are working in the forest again, providing lumber mill workers with wood to cut. Construction workers also have work. Everyone is working. This activity also brings in revenue for the government. With fewer people on EI, costs go down and, with more people paying taxes, revenues grow.

That aspect of the bill seems quite interesting. Another interesting aspect is the opportunity for our young people, who are just starting off in life, to get a nudge in the right direction from people with grey hair like mine so they will be off to a good start. That does sound good.

What I have more of a problem with is equity. Let us take a look at equity in this legislation. Take for example a $200,000 house, on which, as I understand it, the first $100,000 in mortagage would be deductible. How much would this $200,000 house built in Montreal be worth?

Because of supply and demand, the same house would not be worth $200,000 if it were built in Sept-Îles, Sherbrooke or remote areas like Abitibi.

And how would we manage to get equity for interest on this first $100,000 deductible. That means the houses would not have the same value. This needs looking into.

The tax deduction is the point of most concern to me. It concerns me because again there would be two rates, one for the better off and one for the less well off. Let me give an example to explain what I mean.

A person with an income under $30,000 could get a tax deduction of $140 per $1,000, while someone two houses further down the street who earned $60,000 annually could, for the same $1,000 deductible, get $290 in assistance. Why that difference of $120?

We in the Bloc are in favour of a refundable tax credit. This refundable tax credit, at a fixed rate, could be far fairer for everyone. That is why we have certain reservations, and will not be supporting this bill, barring amendments in the tax provisions.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-28.

This is a bill to amend multiple acts. One really has to be a tax expert or have a great deal of common sense to speak on such a complex piece of legislation. Since I consider myself to have common sense, I will make my remarks on that basis.

Last Monday, on the television program Salut, bonjour , Claude Picher from La Presse had these wise words: “The Minister of Finance should use the projected budget surplus as much as possible to reduce” the debt and personal income tax, not to fund new or existing programs. That is a statement that makes a great deal of sense. It is also good advice for the Minister of Finance.

Like me, he could have raised the issue of the GST and said that the GST was originally introduced to dip in the pockets of taxpayers to reduce the huge deficit the central government had at the time. The deficit having been eliminated, common sense would dictate that the government lower if not completely eliminate this tax, thereby making good on an election promise made in their famous red book of 1993. Like me, he could also have raised the issue of transfer payments.

Everyone knows that, in an attempt to achieve zero deficit and even surpluses, the government shamelessly cut billions of dollars in transfer payments to the provinces. These cuts hurt the provinces, which, in turn, had to manage crises in education, health and social programs.

So, common sense would dictate that this government restore transfer payments to their original level instead of talking about implementing new programs that would allow them once again to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. What is the logic in this government implementing new post-secondary education programs when, as we know, the cream of our young achievers trained at public expense in our universities leave Canada for the United States or another country because the tax system is better than in Canada? What would common sense dictate, given that in this exodus of scientists, computer specialists and other professionals, we are losing a large part of our capacity to innovate and, ultimately, the capacity to create jobs in the future?

This is a worrisome situation on which no one, not even the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister of Canada, can put an exact figure. In economic terms, the loss of the most dynamic, the most talented future members of our society is a disaster, an impoverishment of our society. Where is the sense in that?

This brain drain is what has led to the need for taxation reform. It is high time our governments seriously addressed an in-depth reform of personal and small business income tax. If we are to believe Canada's taxation statistics for the 1950s, individuals and corporations accounted for the same percentage of federal income tax revenues. In the decades since, fiscal policy has changed increasingly in favour of big business, so much so that in recent years individuals' contributions have increased eight fold. Where is the sense in that?

It is worthwhile pointing out that the corporate share of federal tax revenues dropped from about 43% in 1961 to a meagre 10% in 1995. The main explanation for this is the proliferation of tax expenditures available to business, the major corporations in particular. Where is the sense in that?

Is the Minister of National Revenue in agreement with the Minister of Finance, his colleague, who claims to be able to solve the deficit without increasing corporate income tax? Why do the corporations manage to shelter income from tax by influencing taxation legislation? Why are they allowed this legal strategy, while the strategy of individuals who decide to do work under the table without paying tax is deemed illegal? This situation represents a serious threat to social equilibrium, Where is the sense in that?

It is easy to understand why the disadvantaged, the people with little or no income, try to get out of paying taxes by every imaginable means. The Bloc Quebecois has long been calling for a job-oriented Canadian corporate tax reform. The Bloc Quebecois is keeping a close eye on the government and will continue to do so in the area of taxation, particularly as concerns the GST, tax shelters, and so on, to be sure that the tax system becomes just and fair for all.

Let us talk about family trusts. There is a flaw in federal legislation in this regard. The report of the auditor general and pressure from the Bloc Quebecois have only partly succeeded in eliciting a reaction from the Minister of Finance on the subject. It is still possible to leave the country without paying taxes owing to Revenue Canada, since an acceptable financial guarantee need only be left. Furthermore, no deferral limit nor method of interest collection is provided for this guarantee.

Since the October 2 amendment to the Income Tax Act, the minister has been unable to report the tax plans this change has occasioned. Where is the sense in that?

The Liberal government should use Bill C-28, an omnibus bill, to make the necessary changes to employment insurance contributions. It is vital the government reform the current employment insurance system in order to put an end to the inequities it gives rise to and to better protect workers, including the seasonally employed.

The Bloc Quebecois also wants the Minister of Finance to substantially reduce the levels of contribution to the employment insurance plan, conditional on the job creation performance of business. The reduction in contributions could be 40 cents per $100 of insurable payroll.

The Minister of Finance must also create an employment insurance fund separate from the federal government's consolidated fund, as the Auditor General of Canada proposed, to prevent money belonging to workers and employers being used as a discretionary fund of the federal government. That makes sense.

It would be a good idea for the government to move quickly to pass anti-deficit legislation as did the Quebec National Assembly. That makes good sense.

Instead of reaching into people's pockets, the government should cut unnecessary expenditures and useless programs within its own departments. One example is the $30 million to change the Canada Post logo.

As my time is running out, I will move on a bit faster to other examples.

It should also cut unnecessary expenditures, the tens of millions of dollars spent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to brainwash Canadians. We are entitled to ask whether this government is acting wisely, whether the way it manages makes sense. No, it does not make sense, because this government's policies are widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and adding to the tax burden of the middle class and our small businesses.

A tax system that drives a nation to poverty definitely makes no sense. For this reason, and in solidarity with members of the Bloc Quebecois, I will energetically oppose passage of this bill. My common sense tells me that it is urgent that the people of Quebec stick together as they move towards sovereignty.

[Patriots Of Saint-Eustache, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, carved out of the lands of the seigneurie des Mille Isles, the riding of Sainte-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse occupies an important place in our national history.

On December 14, 1837, 2,000 English soldiers commanded by Colborne waged battle with some one hundred of our young men. In response to Queen Victoria's troops, Dr. Jean-Olivier Chénier and his companions offered heroic resistance. With only the meanest of weapons, this clutch of men, barricaded in the church, fought a courageous battle over several hours with 70 of them losing their lives.

The people of Quebec remember you, Jean-Olivier Chénier, Jean-Baptiste Lauzé, François Dubé, Nazaire Fillion, Joseph Guitard, Séraphin Doré, Joseph Bouvret, Jean-Baptiste Toupin, Alexis Lachance, Pierre Dubeau, Joseph Paquet, and all the others.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-2, which the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting, since it is a carbon copy of the Quebec pension plan.

This bill will make it possible to create a fund similar to the Caisse de dépôt et placement created by the Quebec pension plan.

This afternoon, I greatly appreciated the hon. member for Qu'Appelle's praise of our fund. I also appreciated his being so praiseworthy of a fund created by Jacques Parizeau, the former premier of Quebec. Mr. Parizeau is a controversial figure, but he has the courage of his convictions and he does not mince words, whether they are good ones or bad, he dares to express himself. We could do well with more politicians like Mr. Parizeau today.

Returning to the amendments proposed on Bill C-2 which we are discussing this afternoon, I really can say no more, because my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have pretty well touched upon everything we do not like about them.

I must state, however, that Bill C-2, if it is indeed modelled on the Quebec pension plan, will be advantageous for all Canadians. This is the role of a serious opposition, to stand up for everyone, regardless of their political stripes.

I am pleased to have contributed to the review of this bill.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I irritated my dear colleague from the Reform Party, but, yesterday, I was looking at Reform Party members performing, and I can tell you that they too were going all over the place.

I am pleased to participate in this debate and to expression my humble point of view.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I understand your concern and your decision that I comment only on Group No. 2. But seeing how fast the members opposite are moving this debate forward, with their objections, their points of order, etc., Group No. 5 will only be discussed in two or three years. Pardon me if I go from one group to the other, but I will now move on to Group No. 2.

As I way saying, it costs $76.33 a tonne to ship wheat from Redford to Vancouver. From Redford to Thunder Bay, it costs $53.80. I wonder why the Canadian Wheat Board ships its grain, its barley and its wheat to countries like Irak, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Belgium through ports in Vancouver. Why not ship the wheat through Thunder Bay and then through the ports in Quebec? This makes no sense, I cannot understand it. I cannot understand it, unless this is part of a certain Plan B to isolate Quebec from Europe. Maybe that is the reason. I cannot understand it.

I will stop here, even before the minute you gave me is over.