Odina Desrochers

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as presented by the revenue minister, Bill C-18 meets an urgent need to exercise greater control at Canadian customs offices.

Each of the provinces, including Quebec, that share a border with the United States experience situations where individuals from that country cross our border while intoxicated, or after committing serious offences across the border.

The proposed changes will affect nearly two thirds of the total strength of 3,200 customs officers, a number we believe to be insufficient to strengthen border crossings.

Recent statistics published by Revenue Canada show that, over the past two and a half years, Canada customs officers have been faced with the following situations, provided for by the Criminal Code, at ports of entry across the country: more than 8,500 cases where drivers were suspected of driving while impaired; 200 alleged cases of child abduction; nearly 2,000 cases of persons against whom an arrest warrant had been issued; and finally, more than 500 cases of individuals who were in possession of allegedly stolen goods, mainly vehicles.

While customs officers reported these incidents to local authorities, the police was only able to apprehend a few suspects. Such incidents happen at most ports of entry by land, air or sea, 80% of which are located on our highway system.

It goes without saying that, based on these troubling statistics, there is no need for the revenue minister to justify Bill C-18 any further. The minister also indicated that this bill would confer broader powers on Canada Customs.

Under this proposal, customs officers would help police officers by taking immediate action at the border. The customs officers' current powers to arrest and detain would be broadened in an effort to fill the gap between the time when they observe a Criminal Code offence and the time when the police arrives on the scene and can take over.

The proposed changes would also give customs officers the power to arrest any person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued under the Criminal Code. Designated officers could demand samples of breath from suspected impaired drivers. People who show high levels following this screening test would be turned over to the police for a breathalyser test. So it is the responsibility of provincial authorities to continue the investigation and to prosecute those who are alleged to have committed an offence under the Criminal Code at the border.

Let us now talk a bit about Quebec. These stricter measures at the Quebec-U.S. border would help Quebec's campaigns against drunk driving. Impaired driving is still the primary cause of highway deaths in Quebec. Alcohol is involved in about 45% of deaths and 25% of serious injuries on the highways.

Over the last decade, in Quebec, the number night-time cases of drivers with a blood alcohol content above the limit has decreased by 40%. Greater control at border crossings would therefore help support the efforts of Quebec's provincial police officers.

Let us go back now to the bill. The preamble states that a number of customs officers will be designated by the Minister of Revenue to carry out the new duties. I think the Minister of Revenue should specify in his bill the provinces, cities and towns that will be affected by the changes proposed in Bill C-18.

We agree that the minister should have discretion to designate the customs officers mentioned in the bill, but we would like more information on this subject. Also, I would like to ask another important question to the Minister of Revenue concerning the mechanism for selecting customs officers. Will this procedure be carried out in co-operation with union representatives?

The proposed changes as outlined in this bill will most certainly be creating a new class of customs officers. Will their pay be higher? How will these changes be reflected in the existing collective agreement? Will the seniority clauses be respected? All these questions need clarification before our party can take a final position on Bill C-18.

What will be the limits of the powers given to customs officers in their new duties? I hope we are not creating a new police force that could end up with the same powers as the RCMP. I need hardly point out that our party and the Liberal government have locked horns several times since 1993 on the sharing of jurisdiction between Quebec and Ottawa.

The Minister of Revenue must therefore make a commitment to respect the responsibilities and jurisdictions of Quebec. The mandate of the Sûreté du Québec, our provincial police, and of the courts imposing the fines and penalties for these criminal acts must be respected. Too often, under the pretext of national security, of national health, the federal government has used such political opportunities to try to convince us that national standards are required.

Furthermore, in these difficult years, we do not often see a government invest without providing for additional revenues. The Minister of Revenue tells us that provincial authorities will retain their responsibility to prosecute under the Criminal Code, but he gives no information on a very important detail. Who will be collecting the fines, Revenue Canada or Revenue Quebec?

The Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa to protect Quebec's interests, including the areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, our party will make sure the federal government fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction in the context of Bill C-18.

The principles underlying Bill C-18 are acceptable, but the way these changes in the customs officers' duties will be implemented still raises numerous concerns.

For example, given the budget cuts imposed by the finance minister, where will the revenue minister find the money to renovate customs offices? Where will he get the money to train customs officers? Did the minister estimate the total cost involved in delegating these new responsibilities to customs officers?

Earlier in my speech, I said that these changes will have to be made in co-operation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

The revenue minister claims he decided to table this bill after conducting the following consultations. In 1995, an in-depth study of the powers conferred on customs officers revealed that the existing situation was unacceptable. There is no need to go back over this, since the figures I mentioned just a few moments ago confirm it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It was therefore proposed that the powers given these officers be increased to include offences under the Criminal Code. Groups such as CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating Its Termination, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, police forces, Revenue Canada employees, and CEUDA have offered their support.

But, here again, did the federal government consult the right people before tabling this bill? Did it take the time to go and see the people in the provinces who will have to live with the amendments resulting from this bill? Did the Solicitor General, who is taking part in the implementation of this bill, consult provincial authorities in this connection? Or is the federal government once again getting ready to meddle in provincial areas of jurisdiction?

In addition, the minister is indicating that implementation of this bill could take from six to nine months after royal assent is given. First of all, he intends to train designated customs officers, and then to renovate certain Customs Canada facilities in order to create secure areas in which suspects can be held.

Once again, a grey area remains, making it difficult for us to see where the minister is really headed with this bill. Does he intend to take a global approach, or has he already identified regions where there is a more pressing need for these customs posts?

There are many questions, but we believe in the rationale behind Bill C-18 and this is why we are supporting it in principle.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the bill tabled by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar meets an urgent need to revitalize the construction sector. It also represents an interesting way of helping future first-time home buyers by giving them a tax break on the first $100,000.

As we know, the interest on a mortgage costs the average homeowner a bundle, and this is true throughout the country, including in Quebec. Often the interest on a mortgage prevents young families from buying a home. It is therefore time for the federal government to take concrete action to encourage the housing industry, an important lever in the Canadian, Quebec and regional economies.

Interest rates are now within the reach of most people. It is therefore appropriate that the government bring in legislation to encourage young families to buy homes more suited to their needs. If the government were to go ahead with certain tax measures, it could thus lighten the financial burden on future homeowners.

The Reform member from Manitoba mentions that he would like to see tax deductions for future home buyers. The Bloc Quebecois has some doubts about the Reform Party's intentions.

This deduction, which would be based on individual income, would help the richer members of society, and once again put the less well off at a serious disadvantage. Here again, we recognize the Reform philosophy lurking behind this bill: protect those with higher incomes and forget about the poorer members of society.

It does not surprise anyone that the Reform Party thinks along these lines, because this clearly right leaning party has frequently had its own contribution to make to the social nightmare created by the Liberals since they came to power in October 1993.

I will, if I may, refresh my colleagues' memory concerning the tax measures that have done great harm to our social climate: unemployment insurance reform, and cuts in provincial transfer payments that have created problems in health services, social programs and education.

What have Reformers done about these destructive Liberal policies? I can think of nothing.

The recent Speech from the Throne and the economic statement by the Minister of Finance show no signs of relief for the less privileged in society, and there again Reform members remain silent. We can get an idea in fact of the Reform Party's social conscience when we look at their position in the current debate on the greenhouse effect throughout Canada. The Reform Party acts as if there were only one province involved in this matter and neglects to propose a comprehensive solution to this global problem.

Let us come back to the bill itself. Although its first objective is to improve the social climate, the Bloc Quebecois has serious concerns about the provisions proposed by the Reform Party to amend the Income Tax Act. We believe these proposals will do nothing to meet the real needs of future home buyers.

In its own income tax policy, the Bloc Quebecois is very clear on the issue of tax deductions versus tax credits. In its policy statement, it makes the following distinctions, which I would like now to examine with you.

There is a difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. Tax expenditures can take the form of tax deductions or tax credits. Tax deductions are taken into account in the calculation of the taxpayer's net income. They are factored in before the amount of tax payable is determined and they therefore reduce the taxpayer's taxable income. They allow him to benefit from tax savings. These can vary according to the tax rate for that income bracket. Tax deductions are regressive, because the higher the taxable revenue, the higher the savings. In the present system, the higher the tax rates, the greater the tax savings provided by tax deductions.

On the other hand, tax credits are subtracted from the amount of tax payable. They are used to determine the net amount of tax payable. Tax credits are neutral. Tax savings through tax credits are the same for every taxpayer, whatever his or her taxable income.

Let us take the example of three incomes: one less than $29,590, one in the range between $29,590 and $59,180 and one more than $59,180. For each $1000, a taxpayer with an income of less than $29,590 would benefit from an identical tax saving, whether in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit.

A taxpayer with a taxable income in the $29,590 to $59,180 range would save $260 in taxes if he takes advantage of a tax deduction, whereas he would receive only $170 in the form of a tax credit for each $1,000.

A taxpayer with an income in excess of $59,180 would save $290 in tax if he was entitled to a tax deduction, whereas he would receive only $170 in the form of a tax credit.

It can be seen, then, that federal assistance to individuals via a tax deduction can vary enormously according to the individual's taxable income. A person earning less than $30,000 would receive $170 in assistance per $1,000 of tax deduction, while one earning $60,000 receives $290 in assistance for the same deduction.

The better off therefore receive $120 more in assistance per $1,000 in deduction, when their tax savings are compared to those of people with a taxable income of less than $29,590. There is, therefore, a flagrant injustice.

Our party therefore approves of the principle set out in Bill C-223, but we intend to call for a major amendment. We would like to see the proposed tax deductions changed to tax credits, which would, in our opinion, be fairer for all those affected by this bill.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what to say about this confused, distorted and erroneous lesson in history. You know, I really wondered where the hon. member for Abitibi was living today. Was he living in the past, in the present or in the future? Was he talking like a Conservative or a Liberal? At times, I could picture him here, or in his riding, even at the National Assembly. Figures were quoted to us, right and left. Everything is so confused.

It only goes to reinforce our request. All these figures, all the unclear statements like the ones we just heard, led us to submit a legitimate request to have an independent expert panel that would finally shed the light on this issue. I do not think arguments like those we have heard since the beginning of today's debate will convince us to back down. On the contrary, we will fight and we will get our $2 billion in GST.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

In order to resolve this, we in the Bloc Quebecois have a revolutionary suggestion to make, an equitable suggestion, as follows: Appoint a representative of your government. We in the Bloc Quebecois will receive the Quebec representative and then these two will select a third person, and the three will see who is right. But I am convinced Quebec is the one that is right.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois are mature men and women who do not need the founder of their party to hold them by the hand.

But to come back to the motion, why are we debating this motion today? It is very simple. We could talk about financial arguments, financial models, figures, billions and percentages, but the members opposite do not understand.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health was saying that things were clogged up. I have the impression that, on the issue of compensation for the GST, the members opposite are pretty clogged up. They have great difficulty understanding what they are being told.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by my party today shows once more that the Liberal government continues to deal with Quebec on a different basis.

Despite repeated demands from the Quebec government, it systematically refuses to grant any compensation for tax harmonization in Quebec. Its repeated rejections of legitimate Quebec demands have been condemned time and again by Bloc Quebecois members and the Quebec finance minister, Bernard Landry, who has to deal with a $2 billion shortfall. In a similar situation, maritime provinces received $1 billion. Thanks to that money, the governments in these provinces, especially New Brunswick, are now better able to compete with the other provinces and with Quebec.

By acting this way, the Liberal government, even when it tries, through its federalist propaganda, to sell the merits of the best country in the world, is clearly trampling all over Quebec by hiding behind the smoke screen of a financial model that results in inaccurate calculations by the finance minister.

Whatever financial method the finance minister is using, we know how he views the province of Quebec, a unique province that, since 1993, has been hit by drastic cuts, the sole purpose of which is to discredit the Quebec government.

Had it not been for the tactics of the Liberal government, the Government of Quebec would have already presented a balanced budget to the people of Quebec.

The Minister of Finance is hard-headed, or he seems to have problems understanding our arguments. Last December, two Quebec government ministers once again demanded that Quebec receive $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the GST. It should be remembered that Quebec harmonized its sales tax on its own and without any financial assistance. Quebec businesses bore the financial costs of this reform.

Last May, in his speech, the Quebec Finance Minister reminded us that on April 26, 1996, the Liberal federal government announced with great fanfare the signature of memorandums of understanding with three Atlantic provinces, whereby their respective sales taxes would be harmonized, effective April 1, 1997, at a combined rate of 15%.

The reason for this decision by the federal government, according to the Minister of Finance, was to compensate the financial losses borne by these three provinces. At the same time, he announced an adjustment assistance program whereby close to $1 billion, that is $423 per capita, would be paid as compensation. But nothing for Quebec, as the federal government showed once again that it could not be fair to Quebeckers.

When he tabled his budget in the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Finance strongly condemned this action by the Liberal government. I would like to quote Minister Bernard Landry:

The adjustment assistance program gives the three Atlantic provinces a competitive advantage over Quebec. Because of this compensation, these provinces are able to reduce their sales tax rate by 4 percentage points and to give businesses full rebates on their input taxes. Because of the federal government's financial assistance, they can make their tax system more competitive, without having to increase their other taxes and without reducing input tax credits for businesses in order to finance the cost of harmonization with the GST.

After many requests and months of waiting, Quebec finally received from the federal government, in August 1996, the detailed results of its analytical grid used to review Quebec's request. We are attempting again today to bring the federal Finance Minister to admit that his calculations are incorrect.

I will quote again Minister Bernard Landry:

By considering only the sales tax revenues of the provinces that have opted to harmonize with the GST and not the complete tax burden, the adjustment assistance program fails to consider the provinces' global tax policy. In this way, this program unduly benefits the Atlantic provinces, which have the highest sales taxes in Canada.

This is what their renewed federalism, their more flexible federalism, is all about, complete with the homeland of the French language and, more recently, the unique character of Quebec and Quebeckers which nine other Canadian provinces now want to recognize. This is how the federal government wants to define the unique character of Quebec.

I do not want to fight over figures, but let us take the time to see how the Liberal government behaves in its dealings with Quebec.

The conflict between Quebec and Ottawa arises from the fact that compensation is calculated based upon an economic model and some kind of simulation. The federal government has tried to estimate the amount to the losses the Atlantic provinces and Quebec will incur during the four years following the harmonization. This simulation is applied to all provinces and only takes into consideration the sales tax revenues.

By using only the sales tax revenues instead of the total provincial tax base to determine if the provinces deserve any compensation, Ottawa is treating the provinces and Quebec in the most unfair way possible.

It is obvious that the federal Minister of Finance is unjustly penalizing the provinces for their previous fiscal choices. Indeed, eligibility for federal compensation depends on the way the provinces choose to structure their taxes. The more a province relies on sales tax to generate revenues, the more a change in that tax rate is likely to produce major revenue losses, and the more that province is likely to receive federal compensation.

The adjustment assistance program is arbitrary since it does not take into account the fiscal realities in the different provinces and in Quebec nor their actual financial capacity to harmonize their sales tax.

The compensation requested by the Government of Quebec is very reasonable. I remind you that the compensation paid to the Atlantic provinces equals almost $1 billion, which represents an average of $423 per inhabitant while the compensation demanded by Quebec represents $273 per inhabitant.

Numbers talk and I submit that the Minister of Finance should be competent enough to recognize the difference between the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Since the beginning of this session, the Minister of Finance seems to have forgotten a basic rule of etiquette which says that when asked a question, one must answer, and more importantly, one must tell the truth.

I sometimes wonder if the minister still remembers that rule. With all his empty answers, we come to question how serious he is. When we know that there was a 60% gap last year between his estimates and the actual deficit, we can easily see why he cannot really understand Quebec's situation.

I wish to take this opportunity to say that the political decisions of the Liberal government since it took office in 1993 are being criticized throughout Canada and Quebec. Poverty is on the increase, students are in debt and have no jobs, the EI reform is unfair to everyone, and social and health services have been hard hit. And the Liberal government dares to talk about a humane approach to finance. Enough is enough.

The Minister of Finance knows very well what the Government of Quebec intends to do with the financial compensation it is requesting for harmonizing with the GST. It will be used over a period of four years to cover the cost of input taxes for Quebec businesses.

In the riding of Lotbinière in Quebec, businesses would put this $2 billion to extremely good use by becoming more competitive on Canadian, North American and international markets. The Minister of Finance knows this, and that is why he is refusing to pay. Once again, he sits tight and Quebec pays.

Why? Because we are unique. There are many examples of the Liberal government's bad faith. Their centralizing tactics pervade their every action. The throne speech was very revealing in this regard, and the recent moves by the Minister of Health, as well as those by the Minister of Human Resources Development, with his youth strategy, represent serious interference in provincial jurisdiction.

It is all a numbers game. The federal government seems to have trouble understanding what Quebec is going through. As for the GST harmonization, in light of the actions of the present Liberal government, we have a very good suggestion. It was announced by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, during the last election campaign.

At that time, Mr. Duceppe suggested to the Liberal government that an independent arbitration panel be created to resolve the impasse, which is very harmful to Quebec's economy. Quebec's Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance is prepared to challenge the federal finance minister's figures. The repeated refusals by the federal minister say a lot about the weakness of his government's arguments.

If the minister is so sure he is right, why is he hiding behind a series of vague and inexplicable refusals?

This is why all members of the House must vote in favour of this motion that could, once and for all, shed light on this shady business by the federal finance minister, who continues to shirk his responsibilities in this debate.

In conclusion, the behaviour of the Liberal government merely strengthens the argument that the only real solution to all Quebec's economic problems lies in sovereignty.

[Parish Of Princeville, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the parish of Princeville is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its foundation this year.

In addition to generating numerous activities, this event is a perfect opportunity to become more familiar with our roots and to rediscover Quebec's traditional values.

As the member for Lobtinière, I wish these people some happy celebrations and I take this opportunity to congratulate the organizing committee chaired by Roger Bilodeau.

One of the highlights of the festivities was the launching of a history book. I also congratulate the author, Claude Raymond, who did not hesitate to show his attachment to Quebec by entitling his book Dis-moi comment on a bâti mon pays .

[Computer Systems, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000 is 26 months away and that 26 months is a very short time to tackle such a computer challenge, is the President of the Treasury Board prepared to report to Parliament on a regular basis on the progress being made in this respect?

[Computer Systems, November 3rd, 1997]

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Should the government fail to meet the information technology challenge of the change in millennium, millions of cheques, including pension, old age and EI benefit cheques, will not be issued.

Since Human Resources Development Canada took a long time to develop its computer system just to end up, after investing hundreds of millions of dollars in this project, deciding that the solution would be to cast the new system aside, what assurance do we have that a solution will be found by the year 2000?

[Closing Of Bc Mine, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the minister is abandoning these workers to their fate, condemning them to poverty when their employment insurance benefits run out?