Pauline Picard

[Tax Agreements, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the Minister of Finance is benefiting, through eight of his companies, from the tax treaty between Canada and Barbados.

What credibility can the minister have, since he is directly involved in an issue in which he has a personal interest through eight of his companies?

[Tax Agreements, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the government's mandate when its moral code was less elastic, the Minister of Finance had to withdraw from cabinet whenever the issue of shipbuilding was on the agenda.

Now the Minister of Finance is allowed to fully get involved in the issue of tax havens.

How can the minister justify such involvement considering that he owns 11 companies in tax havens, including eight in Barbados? Is this not as obvious a conflict of interest as one can find?

[Criminal Code, April 5th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the criminal code in order to prohibit the genetic manipulation of a human cell, a zygote or an embryo with a view to preventing human cloning. Any person guilty of such an offence would be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both.

As we know, the pace of scientific discoveries and technical advances in biotechnology has accelerated over the last few years which forces the legislator to take note of the situation.

Faced with this undeniable fact, almost all the developed countries in the world have put on a spurt and, over the last few months, quickly passed legislation to prohibit human cloning or at the very least to strictly regulate genetic research. In Canada, there is nothing at all, there is a legislative vacuum. That is why I am introducing this bill.

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

[Tax Agreements, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since it is tax return time, and since the Summit of the Americas is just around the corner, should the Prime Minister not take a position which is clear and reassuring for the people we represent by promising to fight harmful tax practices in the three Americas, contrary to the position announced by the Minister of Finance?

[Tax Agreements, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite the OECD's condemnation of tax havens, finance ministers of the Americas will not be discussing this issue at their meeting in Toronto.

Since 10 of the 34 FTAA countries are tax havens, does the Prime Minister not realize that a free trade area for capital will facilitate the annual exodus from Canada of several billions of dollars, leaving the full tax burden to be shouldered by citizens like us?

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to know that there have been at least 12 questions on softwood lumber so far.

The opposition parties and the editorial writers are not the only ones questioning the Prime Minister's ethical shortcomings. Gordon Robertson, former clerk of the Privy Council, who saw service under four Liberal PMs, says that the position of Prime Minister at this time is more like an elected dictatorship.

Is the government going to admit that Mr. Robertson is far from wrong, since the only one who can decide to initiate an inquiry into the Auberge Grand-Mère affair is the Prime Minister?

[Prime Minister, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the public, the newspapers, the polls and the observers are all faulting the Prime Minister on his lack of ethics.

The Ottawa Citizen summarizes the situation well by calling upon the Prime Minister to table all the documents or resign. The choice is up to him.

Is the Prime Minister going to finally face the fact that he must table all documents and call a public inquiry?

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 75 by the hon. member for Vancouver East. The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion and also calls upon Canada to take positive steps and adopt positive guidelines concerning cetaceans, their conditions, protection of their lives and trade in these species.

The main objective of having a zoo or aquarium is to enable people to observe the animals in a cage or pool. According to an organization called Zoocheck, each visitor spends an average of 60 seconds observing each exhibited animal.

The problem in this situation is the cruelty inflicted on marine mammals when they are captured. The capture is often extremely violent. It is not a rare occurrence for females to abort their young, or for animals to beach themselves or drown.

Specimens may be pursued for hours. Once caught, they are hauled out of the water. A number of unscrupulous hunters will haul them out by the tail. They are then transported on a sort of stretcher. Because they are out of the water for a number of hours, their skin rapidly dehydrates, they have difficulty breathing and they develop sores wherever their skin rubs against their restraints.

A long flight may follow. Shipping one killer whale to the aquarium that had purchased it took 68 hours.

It took 18 hours to fly two dolphins from California to Florida. By the time they arrived, their blow holes had become so obstructed that one died within days.

Recently, Lufthansa Airlines decided that it would no longer transport captive dolphins because doing so caused the animals suffering and was too risky.

Another problem is the environmental imbalance and threat to the survival of certain species. According to Cetacean Societies , which was written last year by an American collective, 66% of all mammals captured worldwide are adult females.

Because of the essential role played by females, this has a serious effect on the group's reproductive rates and social cohesion.

On March 14, 1990, the U.S. government decided to suspend any captures of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico because the species was seriously in danger of disappearing.

Right now, the dolphin population in the Black Sea is endangered because of the combined effect of population depletion and captures by zoos and aquatic parks.

Arriving in a pool is a triple shock for a newly captured dolphin: first, its living space is suddenly and spectacularly reduced; second, it is put into close and unconstrained contact with human beings and other dolphins not members of its own family; third, it is forced to consume dead fish rather than the live prey to which it is accustomed.

Because of these traumas, aquariums must confine dolphins to an isolated pool for periods that can sometimes last as long as one month in order to help them adapt to their new life.

They are then force-fed dead fish, which must be an absolutely dreadful experience for the dolphin. Fifty percent of captured dolphins die within days of arrival at an aquarium.

The amount of activity and space is very important for cetaceans. In the wild, a normal grouping of dolphins totals about thirty. They range throughout a territory some 125 kilometres long and frequently travel beyond it toward other groups.

Pacific dolphins like to dive down to 535 metres in depth while the Atlantic dolphins frequently stay at a depth of 390 metres. They spend a scant 20% of their time on the surface. Their time is mainly spent searching for bottom-dwelling invertebrates, exploring long distances, and hunting as a group.

Dolphins culturally transmit many things to their young in a variety of ways: socialization, games, vocalizations and how to raise and protect offspring. Young dolphins are protected for five to fifteen years and intergenerational contacts remain frequent once they have reached adulthood.

No matter how large an aquarium pool, it forces cetaceans into inactivity. They have no control whatsoever over their activities and mating behaviour. This limited and artificial environment and the social interaction with only a few individuals is the reason captive animals suffer and die.

The restriction of movement leads to muscular sclerosis, or to some muscles developing more than others. The mammals are constantly stressed and nervous, as well as more aggressive. They also lack appetite because of their lack of exercise. Their health is also affected by the fact that the water in the pool is chlorinated and lacks nutrients and sunlight, and that they are constantly on antibiotics.

In the wild, even violent conflict rarely leads to serious injury, because the male who is losing can always admit defeat and flee. The females are the ones most dominant.

In captivity, the largest male dominates all the rest. During breeding season, the fights between males are extremely violent. To avoid fights between the males, some aquariums keep only one male per pool.

In captivity, the make-up of these groups is seriously disrupted. When they are in their natural habitat, several generations of females live with their offspring in a specific territory, while males are gathered on the outskirts, based on complex alliances. During their adult life, they only make brief visits to their parents. Families are usually made up of two males and one female.

When in captivity, this ratio is reversed and females outnumber males, thus triggering abnormal conflicts between females that are pregnant or about to give birth. Sometimes, jealous females will even kill babies. A kind of forced polygamy is organized, but it does not reflect the natural model at all.

When they live freely, males do not usually socialize for very long with the female social group. Therefore, living in captivity deeply affects this type of organization. Adult males are forced to interact closely, both night and day, with females. This forced interaction exacerbates male dominance. Based on what has been observed in basins, it is clear that this dominance by a single male is the source of many behavioural problems, particularly among the group's young marine mammals.

When they live freely, female dolphins usually have a baby every two or three years. The young dolphin receives a real education to ensure its future survival and allow it to fully develop as a member of the group.

Fifty per cent of dolphins living in captivity die before the age of one. Of that number, 23% die during the first month.

In Quebec, there are no cetaceans in captivity. Because of our geographical location, the industry prefers to promote observation of cetaceans in their natural environment. Such a practice, provided it is conducted at a minimal distance, has much less of an impact on cetaceans then keeping them captive in basins.

Tourists come from all over the world to have an opportunity to watch whales and belugas from the Saguenay. Observing cetaceans like this tells us a lot more about their lifestyle and habits than watching them for a few minutes while they are in captivity or performing tricks.

I will stop here and reiterate my support. The Bloc Quebecois supports Motion No. 75.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, March 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, what is outraging is the fact that this hon. member was not saying the same thing when he was on this side of the House. Now that he is on the other side, he has changed his tune.

When plants were closing and my colleagues and I were raucous in the House, calling for help to be provided to former older workers of the Canadian Celanese and the Cavalier Textiles in my region, as well as in his, he told me “When my party gets into office, we will restore measures for former older workers”. He is now on the other side and his party is in office, but I am still waiting for the measures that will be implemented to help these people.

With regard to the CHST, I would point out to my hon. colleague that initially the federal transfer for health and education was supposed to be 50%. Since 1993, the federal government has withdrawn support and its share has now declined to 14%. That doesn't make sense.

There have been drastic cuts. All the provinces, not just Quebec, but all the provinces agree that, if our provincial health systems are in danger, it is because of the cuts made by the federal government. So it is very insulting to come and tell us things like that.

When the minister made his financial statement, for once we had calculated the same flexibility as the finance minister. We too had calculated $147.9 billion. We had the same forecasts. Each year we used to come up with forecasts and the finance minister would say that we were mistaken. However, we were right, our figures were right and he had to recognize it.

This time, he came up with the same figure as us, as I was saying, that it $147.9 billion, but it is probably more than that now.

With regard to the tax burden reduction, the Minister of Finance forecast personal income tax reductions of $75.2 billion over five years. What I wanted to say it that we were suggesting a different way of allocating the $147.9 billion to assist those who suffered drastic cuts, particularly in the area of health.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that I raised this issue in the House during the 36th parliament, in our reply to the economic statement or mini-budget. Bill C-22 is the exact copy of this mini budget.

I am surprised that nothing has been changed. The government could have addressed certain problems or weaknesses in the economic statement that was made just before the election. Throughout the election campaign, the Liberal government boasted a lot, through its members and candidates, about the upcoming tax reductions. There would be something for everybody, they said, because they had put the nation's finances in good shape, and were making a surplus. They said they would help all those that had been affected by drastic cuts. The finance minister had room to manoeuvre with $147.9 billion, including the agreement on health signed with the provinces on September 11. We can safely guess that right now his room to manoeuvre is much bigger, but today our discussions centre on the $147.9 billion.

Tax cuts can be expected for 2004. I think that this is the time of year when everybody in Canada and in Quebec is checking their tax returns before submitting them to the Department of National Revenue. Few are lucky enough to be able to say “I have benefited this year of a real tax cut that has allowed me to put my finances in order”.

Here are some examples of what tax cuts will probably look like in 2004. A single parent family with an income of $30,000 and one dependent child would have a $550 tax cut and would still pay $1,545 a year. That is for a family with a $30,000 income.

With a $50,000 income, the same family would have a tax cut of $1,200 or twice that of the single parent family with a $30,000 income. With a $80,000 income, the same family would have a $2,300 tax cut or four times more than that of the family with a $30,000 income. With a $100,000 income, the tax cut would be $3,200, or 5.8 times more than that of the family with a $30,000 income. The tax reduction for Canadians earning $250,000 would be $6,500, 11 times higher than the tax reduction for a family earning $30,000.

For the more than four million women, that is 60% of women, earning less than $30,000, this statement is a slap in the face. A family with an income of $30,000 and one child should not pay any taxes.

The reduction of the capital gains inclusion rate means average gains of $11,600 for taxpayers earning $250,000 or more, compared to average gains of $320 for those earning between $80,000 and $150,000, 36 times less than the average gains for those earning $250,000. As members can see, these tax reductions are for the rich.

There is nothing in this bill for women, for young persons, and for single senior citizens, most of whom are women.

In your riding, Mr. Speaker, there are probably many single senior citizens. Unfortunately these are mostly women who are poor. Their pension income comes to about $12,000 a year. What can one do with $12,000 a year? It is a shame that the government did not think about these people.

Since our population is aging, there will be more and more single older women. These are women who have lost their husbands. We tend to forget widows. With huge surpluses and $147.9 billion to play around with, it is unacceptable that the government did not think about those single women.

There are no provisions for the basic financing of women groups working within organizations. They were completely forgotten. These women are often volunteers. They earn unacceptable salaries in those organizations. Their work is aimed at keeping the centres open in order to help and support single women, older women, women going through difficult times or facing problems of domestic violence. These women groups do their best to keep the centres open, and there is nothing in the budget to help them carry on their work.

There is nothing either for old workers, men and women, who lost their jobs. We had been vocal in the House, trying to convince the Minister of Finance to take into account people hit by plant closures. There will be others, because it is a given with globalization. There will be plant closures. New plants are opening, but there is also rationalization. Big companies are rationalizing.

In my riding, Celanese was the backbone of the economy in Drummondville. Some 50, 40 or 30 years ago, everyone in my riding knew someone who worked at Celanese. That company once had 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 employees. It was really the cornerstone of the region's economic development. As the years went by, transformations took place, and the plant moved to Mexico last year.

There was a good proportion of middle-aged workers, between 50 and 60 years old, who were nearing retirement and who received early retirement benefits. These people were not eligible for employment insurance. They had to use money they received as separation pay. After a year, they had to rely on employment insurance and, later, on social assistance.

In the past, we had measures aimed at helping older former workers. Perhaps they were not the best measures, perhaps they had shortcomings, but at least these people could keep their pride because they did not have to rely on social assistance while waiting to receive their pension.

They were totally abandoned. These people who worked hard for 30 or 40 years in the same factory, for the same employer, were forced to retire because of globalization and the closing of factories. They were told “Go home now; you must rely on social assistance”. It is totally scandalous.

There is nothing for social housing either. There is nothing for international assistance. There is nothing for transfers for health and education. Now, I want to say a few words about indexation, because we know that even if funds were injected into health, costs were not taken into consideration. As the population ages, the cost of equipment, new technologies and drugs is skyrocketing, and we have to take this into account.

There is nothing for shipbuilding. The government has earmarked $1 billion to cover the increase in heating costs, but is sending each person a small cheque. We talked about it in the House. I met with single elderly people with incomes of $13,000 or $14,000 a year, who heat their home with oil, and have seen their heating bills double and nearly triple.

Someone who used to pay $400 for heating oil will have paid by the end of this winter between $800 and $1,000. This is outrageous when their yearly income is $13,000. The government issued cheques for $125 instead of keeping the money to target people who really needed it. The government took this initiative and sent cheques to help with heating expenses to everybody, including those who do not use heating oil. It does not make sense.

I have nothing against giving money to people who qualify for the GST rebate; I am happy for the people who received a $125 cheque. It was certainly welcome, especially during the holiday season. However, what did the government do for people such as single women who have only $13,000 a year to live on, whose heating expenses went up? It could have tried a bit harder.

It is similar to distributing goodies before an election is called, to make everybody happy; this creates a lot of visibility but solves nothing. People will get even deeper into poverty to avoid freezing this winter, as their heating bill doubles and nearly triples.

What does one do when one is poor and does not want to freeze? One goes without food or without heat and one literally freezes in order to be able to eat a little bit. This is unconscionable on the part of a government with a $147.9 billion surplus.

It has done a lot to pay down the debt. This is called fancy accounting. The finance minister has been very cautious. With the surplus he did not announce, he was able to reduce the debt. I have nothing against reducing the debt, but people who were put through the wringer and literally bled to death should come first.

A lot has been done for debt reduction and for millionaires. As a matter of fact, a family with one child and a $250,000 income will benefit from a tax reduction. However, a family with one child and a $30,000 income will not get much of a break. I would call that exploitation.

With these huge surpluses that made the Minister of Finance burst with pride, we were expecting him to give a break to those who were really instrumental in getting our fiscal house in order, those to whom we owe the fact that we have not had a deficit for four years, those who continue to be bled white by federal taxes, those thanks to whom the finance minister can be thrilled about having these surpluses right now.

We thought the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would be low and middle income families, not very high income families that can benefit greatly from tax loopholes. With the help of a good tax expert, people earning $250,000 can save a lot of money.

The government has the audacity to say that surpluses will not exceed $6 billion this year, whereas close to $12 billion has already been accumulated in the coffers of the federal government. I know my figures are not correct because it is actually more than that.

The Minister of Finance could have done more for the disadvantaged, and for low and middle income taxpayers. I am talking about the workers who contribute to the EI fund as well as small and medium size businesses. They are the ones that end up paying for tax cuts for the rich.

I am also talking about the unemployed men and women who are not receiving any EI benefits because of the drastic cuts made and because of the tightening up of the eligibility criteria. The ones who are paying now for the tax cuts to the rich are rural families, and I think my colleague from Jonquière, who has responsibility for this issue, knows this well and will no doubt inform the House at some point about what is going on in the regions, young people, women and seniors.

We know why the government has presented this statement that has now evolved into Bill C-22. It was because the election was about to be called and they wanted to thumb their noses at the Canadian Alliance. What the Alliance was proposing at that time was a uniform rate, and the government wanted to win over the electorate. So, it adopted as its own the Alliance's uniform rate, which was universally denounced as favouring millionaires. It now has included it in its bill.

The $100 billion in surplus has come from the pockets of low and middle income taxpayers and, let me say again, from the unemployed, women, young people, sick people and the most disadvantaged members of our society. This is absolutely indecent.

We must not be too hasty with our rejoicing. Tax cuts are always welcome. Certainly, no one can be opposed to a tax cut. We must not be too quick to rejoice, however, because, as I have said, it will not show up in our tax returns this year. It will probably be in 2004.

The Minister of Finance could have had a budget this year, not a year and a half down the road, and let us have the benefit of these tax cuts this year. I mentioned earlier that, according to the information available, a single parent family with an income of $250,000 and over will benefit from a far greater relief to its tax burden, 40 times greater, than a family with one dependant and an income of $30,000.

Families with an income of $250,000 get a $20,000 net tax reduction, while those with an income of $35,000 and one dependent get a mere $500. These families should not pay any taxes. They do not in Quebec.

With all the money it has, the government still manages to go after these families. There are 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. Does that make any sense? Children are poor because women and families who are poor.

A family with a $35,000 income and one dependent is poor, but still must pay taxes. It will pay $1,425 in taxes. It will benefit from a $500 tax reduction, but not this year, only in 2004.

The minister kept saying, even in this House, that people with an income of $35,000 do not pay any taxes. He said it several times in the House. It is strange to hear him say that they do not pay any taxes and then announce that they will get $500 in tax reduction. Very strange indeed.

I would rather rely on the figures from our own research. People cannot be fooled that easily. The minister said repeatedly that those families do not pay any taxes and then announced that they would bet getting a $500 tax reduction. I truly believe those families are paying taxes.

We can also see in the budget that the government shamelessly keeps on accumulating surpluses, because, as was mentioned earlier, the tax reductions will take effect in only a year and a half. Meanwhile, the government keeps fiddling with the figures.

I can say that we were opposed to the statement and to the mini budget, and that we will not support this bill because it does not meet the needs of the Canadian and the Quebec society.