Pauline Picard

[Bill C-28, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Refusing to give us details about Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance suggested last week, at the outset, that we talk with Mr. Len Farber, who, he said, would help us understand.

Since this tax official from his own department stated, as we have, that clause 241 could apply to companies with the same structure as Canada Steamship Lines, who does the minister suggest we consult next for an opinion that would finally be in his favour?

[Transfer Payments To Provinces, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Quebeckers have been hit hard by the unilateral cuts in transfers to the provinces resulting from the continual deficits of the federal government in recent years. Social and health services have been affected everywhere because the federal government balanced its budget on the backs of the provinces.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to act on the request of the Bloc Quebecois and pass anti-deficit legislation so that in the future the provinces are no longer faced with the consequences of federal deficits?

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving this opportunity, this evening, to pay tribute to the thousands of men, women and children of my riding, who were hit by the worst natural disaster in the history of Quebec.

I also want to pay tribute to the mayors, all elected representatives at the municipal level, and the volunteers. I want them to know that they have my admiration.

I would like to congratulate and thank all those who were involved, like the CLSC, the Tablée populaire Drummond, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, the people at Alcan, in Jonquière, and all the others who have given us support and assistance. I thank you with all my heart.

The people of the riding of Drummond have lived through this time of crisis with courage and dignity, while showing an incredible amount of solidarity to prevent or alleviate the dramatic consequences we were confronted with throughout this terrible ordeal.

The storm broke out, we lost power, our river flowed over, but not once did we run out of solidarity and mutual support. This ordeal we have gone through together has taught us, in Drummond, that a Quebecker's heart is stronger than any storm and sturdier than any pylon.

While the power has been restored to most homes in my riding, the crisis is not over. We managed to avoid the worst of disasters, that is to say the loss of many lives, but we are still confronted to the very severe consequences of this tragic episode.

From a public health point of view, there were numerous cases of fractures, respiratory infections due to flu, exhaustion and depression caused by stress. One thing is sure, the consequences of this crisis on public health will be felt for a very long period and will cause additional expenses to the Quebec health system. The federal government, and especially the Health Minister, should demonstrate the necessary openness to accept compensation claims under the financial support agreements in case of disasters and share with the government of Quebec the additional costs incurred by the public health system.

Our area was spared human life losses, mainly because of the efficiency of emergency measures taken by municipal leaders working with scores of volunteers.

During the worst of the crisis, the mobilization of all resources available was necessary and made possible to avoid the worst. However, as the crisis gradually decreases, we can witness the seriousness of human tragedy affecting those who lost their jobs on a temporary or permanent basis.

In the Drummond area, there are about 450 industrial businesses, mainly small and medium-size businesses. Most of them remained out of power until January 26, for a period of three weeks. It is the same for many businesses who have practically lost their January sales. Many businesses have suffered serious damages to their facilities, as well as their equipment and machinery. Industries have lost contracts, customers and markets, mainly export markets, which they had worked many years to secure.

Even if they have resumed their activity, those businesses are now facing a slowdown of their production. It will be weeks and even months before they can regain their production capacity, but some other businesses find themselves in a desperate situation.

Reluctantly, industries have to lay-off some of their employees for an indefinite period. Consequently, this unprecedented storm is transforming itself into a real economic catastrophe for an area such as ours.

In my county where agriculture is also very important, producers have incurred heavy losses, particularly maple syrup producers whose maple groves and equipment have been severely damaged by the weight of ice. Again, there will be very serious economic consequences. Farmers suffered damages to their buildings and machinery. They lost some animals while others are sick. They had to throw out milk, and cattle could not be delivered or had to be killed. They lost fruits and vegetables kept in storage and spent a lot of money on generators, gasoline and the like.

Although some means are being devised to compensate farmers for their losses, it will not cover everything and it will leave a gaping hole in the economic activity of the farming industry. This loss of economic activity will come in addition to the various other losses suffered by our regional economy.

As we can see, our regional economy is deeply affected by this tragic ice storm. Without adequate cash assistance, it will be a long time before the regional economy reaches again the momentum it had before the storm. Thus, the federal government must go beyond the compensation for emergency measures which are part of the financial aid agreements in case of disaster.

On behalf of my constituents of Drummond, and the citizens of the devastated areas of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, I ask all members of this House to, please, express their solidarity with the victims of the ice storm, the most severely affected of whom being those who lost their livelihood temporarily or permanently.

I ask them to help me convince the Department of Human Resources Development to use the employment insurance account, which it manages not owns, to help the disaster victims who are unemployed, by doing away with the two week waiting period. By adding a special clause dealing with disaster insurance in the employment insurance act, the minister would allow the measure to apply in exceptional circumstances. The minister can count on our full co-operation in getting this amendment through quickly.

Rarely is consensus on an issue reached broadly and naturally. However, this appears to be the case with the use of the employment insurance fund to help workers hit by the storm who find themselves out of a job on the first day not worked.

Employers, employees, unions and management associations have called for it. Municipal politicians, economic development organizations and community, charitable and first aid organizations are calling for it. Editorial writers are writing about it and officials in the Department of Human Resources Development are saying that such an arrangement would be easy to carry out with the full co-operation of employers.

Such a consensus should soften the stand taken by the minister, whose ambiguous statements have so convinced everyone of fact and fiction that our offices and those of the department are still jammed with calls from the public and employers who swear they heard the minister say the opposite of what they have just learned.

If the minister decided to go forward by reversing, I would be the first to understand, support and congratulate him. He would be showing us that he has understood how the government can make fair use of a fund surplus that does not belong to it but rather to employees and employers.

It involves nothing more than a simple operation permitting a healthy injection of funds to restart the economies of the regions hit by the storm. The funds are available and belong to those who amassed them. I hope the minister grasps this.

[Ice Storm, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the recent ice storm quickly turned into a nightmare for thousands of us.

It did however make us realize how incredibly courageous and dedicated the mayors of the affected municipalities could be. Isolated and with makeshift means, they kept their communities afloat for days on end while relief efforts were being organized.

It also gave us an opportunity to witness the extraordinary generosity of hundreds of volunteers and donors, who did all they could and spared no effort to help alleviate the effects of the crisis on the victims.

This large scale show of solidarity deserves the highest praise. On my own behalf and that of all my fellow citizens who were affected by this crisis, thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28 is a rather large bill containing more than 300 clauses. It is a real grab bag of provisions dealing with a variety of topics from employment insurance to transfer payments to the Income Tax Act.

Regardless of what my government colleagues might think or say, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance is trying to pull a fast one on us.

During the 10 minutes allotted to me, I will focus on two main points: the measures relating to federal transfer payments and certain provisions regarding the Income Tax Act. Hon. members will see for themselves how bad Bill C-28 is.

First of all, let us look at transfer payments to the provinces. These past few years, the federal government saved huge amounts of money at the expense of the provinces and the workers, both employed and unemployed. Bill C-28 could have been an opportunity for the Liberals to alleviate the sacrifices it has asked of them so far and for the coming years.

By the end of its second mandate, the Liberal government will have cut $42 billion in social transfers to the provinces. These transfers would normally be used to fund hospitals, postsecondary education and social assistance. These savings enable the federal government to play the knight in shining armour, while the provinces have to do the dirty job of implementing cutbacks.

The President of the Treasury Board spoke eloquently when he stated in the March 8, 1996, edition of Le Soleil : “When Bouchard will have to cut, we in Ottawa will be able to show that we can afford to preserve social programs for the future”.

In 1993, cash transfers for social programs totalled $18.8 billion a year. This year, even after including the changes proposed in Bill C-28, they will amount to a mere $12.5 billion. This is small consolation because the same calculation for Quebec alone shows a total cut of approximately $13 billion instead of $15 billion between 1993 and 2003.

Now, let us take a look at how the Liberals have been dipping into the EI fund. Besides making cuts, the federal government literally steals from workers and employers who make contributions to the employment insurance fund, claiming that the surpluses are used to absorb the deficit, while the unemployed must contend with reduced benefits.

In 1993, the unemployment insurance fund had a $1.2 billion annual deficit, and a cumulative deficit of $5.9 billion. In 1997, following the Liberal reforms, the fund posted a $7 billion annual surplus and a cumulative surplus of close to $13 billion. Let us keep in mind that there is not one cent of the government's money in this program.

Meanwhile, the unemployed have less and less access to the meagre benefits, even in a crisis situation, as was the case for thousands of people in recent weeks.

The Minister of Finance has also presented us with highly inflated deficit targets in order to dodge around the debates on the necessity for cuts in transfers for health, education and unemployment insurance.

Last March, the hon. member for Roberval asked the following question: “Today, after ten months, the cumulative deficit is reported to be $7.3 billion, which could mean a real deficit of $10 billion to $12 billion in 1996-97 instead of the $19 billion he announced—Is the Minister of Finance sneaky or incompetent?” The Minister of Finance's response to this: “But where does this $12 billion figure come from? I do not know. I think it is a figure pulled out of the air”.

Whether sneaky or incompetent, the question is a legitimate one and, in all honesty, both answers may be right. One thing is certain, he does not deserve any of the credit. The provincial finance ministers were the ones who had to do the dirty work for him. With Bill C-28, the minister is missing a great opportunity to show a bit of gratitude toward those who have really been the ones to make the sacrifices.

Let us speak of the taxation system. Honest citizens who pay their taxes to Ottawa are asking, demanding, of the government that everyone at least pay his fair share. That is the least that can be asked, but it seems to me that it is already too much for this government.

In his May 1996 report, the Auditor General indicated his “serious concerns about the administration of the Income Tax Act involving the movement out of Canada of at least $2 billion of assets held in family trusts”.

On October 2, 1996, the Minister of Finance tabled a ways and means motion intended, he said, to plug this loophole. Over a year later, even with Bill C-28, we are still waiting.

If he is going to amend the tax rules with Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance should have followed the lead of the Bloc Quebecois, which, in the fall of 1996, introduced concrete proposals with respect to corporate taxation, two of them concerning the use of tax havens.

With respect to the deductibility of interest expenses—this is the first measure we suggested to the government—when a Canadian company has a subsidiary in a tax haven, first of all it benefits from very low tax rates on profits realized outside the country, but in addition it can deduct from its Canadian revenues the interest on loans used to invest in its subsidiary. We think that, in this particular case, the tax expenditure is too generous.

As for the deduction of intercorporate dividends, when a Canadian company has a subsidiary in a country with which Canada has a tax convention, the dividends paid by the subsidiary to head office are not taxed in Canada, under certain conditions. This Canadian rule is more generous than the practice in the United States. We are asking the federal government to amend the Income Tax Act so as to tax dividends from foreign subsidiaries in Canada and to grant a credit for tax already paid by a foreign subsidiary. These are proposals the government would do very well to bear in mind for its next budget.

But, although they say they want to put a stop to tax havens, the Liberals are in no hurry. Each year, the government loses billions of dollars because of loopholes in the present tax system. These shameless tax avoidance schemes deprive the government of huge amounts that could indirectly benefit Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. Bill C-28 raises once again, but in a negative way, the infamous issue of tax havens, particularly as regards the taxation of capital goods in the context of the foreign accrual property income, or FAPI.

We are talking here about subsidiaries or companies whose primary activity is to generate revenues from the ownership of goods or stocks. These non-active ventures must pay taxes to Canada on the revenues generated through their goods or stocks, unlike the companies that are actually involved in and making profits from shipping operations.

Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend subsection 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to allow a Canadian corporation that owns but does not operate shipping subsidiaries to have these treated as the equivalent of an actual shipping company.

So, instead of telling companies involved in shipping activities abroad that they will now have to pay taxes to Canada like any other corporation, the government is saying to those currently paying taxes that they will no longer have to do so. The minister has a rather strange notion of fairness.

One has to wonder what is in it for ordinary taxpayers. The federal government keeps asking them to tighten their belts and put up with the savage cuts in transfers for health, education and social assistance, but it makes it even easier to move capital abroad.

For these reasons, and for many others that will be raised by my colleagues, I cannot support Bill C-28.

[Ice Storm, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

During the recent unprecedented storm, a number of businesses and industries suffered losses of all sorts—stock, production and marketing losses. They have also had to absorb very high costs such as the cost of renting and using generators, which are much more costly than the regular systems.

How does the government intend, in its negotiations with Quebec, to give special attention to businesses in central Quebec and in the Montérégie region hard hit by the crisis?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

You should talk, with your five members in Quebec.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I use a professional approach in my work, otherwise it would more difficult for the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies to comment on my remarks.

We want to withdraw from the federal system precisely because we have been witnessing intrusions in our areas of jurisdiction for 40 years. For 40 years we have been asking this government to abide by the Constitution, which makes Quebec a people distinct from the rest of Canada.

To say that we want out of Canada because we are fed up with these intrusions is nothing new. The hon. member should know that a number of premiers have complained about the federal government's intrusions. Remember Mr. Duplessis, who used to tell the federal government “give us back our loot”. As for Jean Lesage, he coined the expression “Maîtres chez nous”, masters in our own home.

So, we are not the first ones to condemn the centralizing attitude of the federal government, which wants to create a Canadian people, while we say we are a different people, a distinct people. We want to separate, we want to achieve sovereignty, but we want to do it in harmony with the rest of Canada.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the prebudget consultations. These consultations are an opportunity for the public to provide input to the government as it gets ready to draw up next year's budget.

This year, the country-wide approach to the consultations gave the temporary impression that the government was open and ready to listen to what people had to say. But that was the extent of the surprise. The reality of the matter can be found in the committee report we are discussing today.

The much-heralded exercise was very simple: take the Liberals' red book II, remove the cover page and tack on a new one that reads Report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

That is exactly what it contains: the same reasoning, the same promises, the same spending and the same plans for interfering in provincial areas of jurisdiction. In short, the entire consultation exercise was a sham, because the report is nothing more than a rehash of the Liberals' last election platform

To set the record straight, I would like to remind the government what the people of Quebec and of Canada want to see in the Minister of Finance's next budget. We in the Bloc Quebecois have appended a dissenting report to the finance committee's report. I would like to give an idea of what we are calling for in the next budget.

We want the Minister of Finance to pass seven specific measures. These measures represent the consensus of Quebec's stakeholders during the prebudget consultations.

First, the government must quit interfering in provincial spheres of jurisdiction, such as health, education and social security. It must drop the idea of creating new programs in areas of jurisdiction that would only multiply bureaucratic structures, not to mention driving up costs for taxpayers.

The Minister of Finance must instead use some of the spare funds that he frees up over the coming years to pay back part of what he took from the provinces for postsecondary education, health and social assistance.

Second, the federal government must reform the present employment insurance system to put an end to the injustices created by this program and to provide better protection for the workers of Quebec and Canada, especially seasonal workers.

The Bloc also calls on the Minister of Finance to greatly reduce employment insurance premiums, based on a company's performance in job creation. This reduction in rates could represent 40 cents for every $100 of the total insurable payroll.

The Minister of Finance must also create an employment insurance fund which is separate from the federal government consolidated fund, as proposed by the Auditor General of Canada, so that money from the workers and the employers is not used to artificially reduce the deficit.

Third, the federal government must stimulate job creation and commit to seriously fight against poverty. The Bloc Quebecois, along with many stakeholders in Quebec, is calling for a major reform of personal and corporate income tax through which these objectives could be achieved, while implementing targeted tax reductions for individuals and small and medium size companies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention now, as I forgot to do so at the beginning of my speech, that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Fourth, the federal government must restore indexing in the tax tables. No indexing is essentially a hidden increase in personal income tax.

Fifth, the Minister of Finance must pass a law to prohibit deficits, like the one passed by the Quebec National Assembly.

As far as the GST is concerned, the Minister of Finance must first accept the arbitration proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois to settle this issue, and, depending on the outcome, he must pay to the government of Quebec the $2 billion in compensation being demanded for harmonizing with the GST.

Seventh, the Minister of Finance must re-establish funding for international assistance. Since 1993, that is since the Liberals came to power, funding for international assistance has been drastically reduced, contrary to Canada's humanist tradition.

Recent consultations clearly indicate that there are now more than ever two completely opposite visions on the role that the federal government should play, with Quebec calling for more powers for the provinces and greater autonomy. The nine other Canadian provinces are calling for stronger action in Ottawa in their areas of jurisdiction. This is what we see in health, education and policies to fight poverty. In Quebec, the federal government's intrusion in these jurisdictions belonging to the government of Quebec is strongly condemned.

Yet, these respective areas of jurisdiction are clearly specified in the Constitution. We said it throughout the last Parliament, and we are repeating it again. The government is once again putting its foot in the door to get into other areas of jurisdiction. We are asking the government to comply with the Constitution of 1867.

We are also asking it to repay the money taken by the Minister of Finance in this respect, while the rest of Canada is asking for Canada-wide programs and national standards from coast to coast. These two competing visions are irreconcilable and a sign of future jurisdictional battles and useless and costly frictions between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

As we know, the first ministers are gathering here in Ottawa this week. Let me tell you what Mr. Bouchard said yesterday at a press conference, when he condemned the federal government's activities in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Bouchard said that “instead of sprinkling money through new programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the Chrétien government would be better off reducing personal income taxes and easing off on the cuts it has been making for years in transfers to the provinces. The finance minister's surplus, said to be somewhere between $4 billion and $6 billion for 1998-99, should be used first and foremost to reduce taxes. Quebeckers and Canadians are being taxed to death. Nothing would have a more positive impact on families and on the economy than quick federal tax relief”.

According to him, the Canadian tax burden is a millstone around the neck of Canadian productivity. Seventy-five percent of the surplus should go to reduce taxes by approximately $100 per taxpayer. One-quarter of the remaining surplus should go to social expenditures, as Ottawa wants to do but through transfer payments to the provinces, transferring tax points instead of creating a series of new programs whose common denominator is interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In Ottawa the premiers want to sell the idea of creating a framework for federal spending powers, a mechanism through which new initiatives by Ottawa would have to be approved by a committee of provincial governments.

So they created a transition fund for science and health, a national pharmacare program, millennium scholarships, a Canadian foundation for innovation, sprinkling a little money here and there to create new programs, just after they cut health care and slashed transfers to the provinces.

They wanted to cut up to $48 billion, and now they are handing us back a piddling $6 billion. Instead of transferring that to the taxpayers who need it, they are trying to create new programs. And who do you think will end up holding the bag with these programs a few years down the road? The federal government's tactic is to pull out of these programs and leave it up to the provinces to administer them, although it created both the programs and the needs. Then it withdraws funding. That is unacceptable.

I wish this government would understand common sense and take away this tax burden it is imposing everywhere. What is of the most concern to me, as I tell people regularly, is that the government is not giving us anything. They are just returning our taxes to us. They should stop distributing their goodies to make us close our eyes to reality; they should stop sprinkling crumbs. The people are hungry, the people want to see a lessening of their tax burden.

[Sports And Cultural Events, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, by dragging its feet on the issue of tobacco sponsorship, the government is killing sports and cultural events in Canada, particularly in Quebec. What a mess.

Instead of wasting its time pondering the various options without ever making a decision, should the minister not do like the European Union and impose an eight-year moratorium to give the organizers of these events time to reorganize?