Gilbert Fillion

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I also consulted the people I represent in the riding of Chicoutimi on the proposal made by the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec. So that you know exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief because I know that time is nearly up, the riding of Chicoutimi is made up of seven municipalities.

They are, of course, the cities of Chicoutimi and La Baie, and the five rural municipalities of Ferland-Boileau, Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Rivière-Éternité, Anse-Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay.

Under the commission's proposal, these five rural municipalities that make up the area called Lower Saguenay would be taken away from the riding of Chicoutimi and added to the riding of Jonquière.

Each one of these municipalities refuses categorically to become part of another riding. There are many reasons for that. The riding of Chicoutimi has two major economic centres, namely the cities of Chicoutimi and La Baie. The municipalities of Lower Saguenay have always been economically associated with the city of La Baie. Several services located in La Baie are provided to residents of Lower Saguenay. I will list only a few examples: the Canada Employment Centre, the Small Business Development Centre, La Baie Hospital.

Moreover, the Lower Saguenay municipalities had set up services in which they had invested time and money, like the Chamber of Commerce, the Société touristique du Fjord and the Société de développement de La Baie. Excluding these municipalities from these organizations because they do not belong any

more to the riding of Chicoutimi would jeopardize their entire economic and tourist development.

People in the riding of Chicoutimi have been working for years to reduce the very high unemployment we have in our area. So, for them, electoral boundaries readjustment is not a problem. They want those millions of dollars to be used to find ways of reducing unemployment.

These five municipalities have been working together for a long time on these matters which are essential to their development. unemployment now stands at 16 per cent, and that is what the people of Chicoutimi want us to talk about. They want solutions. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker.

For decades, they trusted the Liberals and the Conservatives. Today, they have had enough. They want to work. They are tired. They are fed up with being overtaxed. So, it is time to stop the futile debates in this House and to tackle these problems first of all.

My constituents in the riding of Chicoutimi are fed up with seeing their purchasing power diminish, which causes more unemployment. They have enough of all the obstacles those two political parties and the former governments invented in the last 30 years to put a damper on job creation in small and medium-sized businesses.

In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, those governments have caused an exodus of young people by stripping them of all hope of survival in their region, because we do not get our fair share of R and D. Both governments have neglected regions like mine. Those are the problems, Mr. Speaker, which my constituents and taxpayers in Chicoutimi want us to talk about.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make a comment about the programs which my colleague mentioned and that are presently considered in his province of New Brunswick.

I do not know if the hon. member has read La Presse this morning, because one headline says: New Brunswick wants to force single mothers to identify the father of their child'', and I have followed the experiments that are being done in this field,Those who will refuse will lose access to welfare''. Is that the kind of model we want to give Canada?

[Income Tax Act, March 22nd, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion which I care about on the tax treatment of child support payments.

First, I must relate some important facts which justify my speaking in this House and which I think are extremely significant, on the economic situation of women who are single parents.

In Canada, 10.7 per cent of all families are headed by a single mother. A brief from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women presented to the federal-provincial-territorial committee on family law in December 1992 gives us the following picture: 82 per cent of one-parent families are headed by women; in 1986, 56 per cent of single mothers had an income below the poverty line; the percentage of poor children raised in single-parent families headed by women more than doubled between 1979 and 1988, from 17.9 per cent to 39.1 per cent. That is frightening! Seventeen per cent of children are poor; 35.5 per cent of them live in single-parent families headed by a woman.

I am not telling you anything new when I say that in most cases child custody is given to women and their income is less. This issue of pay inequity has been and continues to be a subject of debate. Clearly, the inequality of women in our society in general is felt even more strongly by women who must raise their children alone.

Studies on child support payments show that they do not cover even half of the actual expenses incurred and that usually the spouse with custody of the children must make up the difference. We cannot close our eyes to such a situation and therefore we must turn towards legal mechanisms to ensure the viability of families.

The United Nations has declared 1994 the International Year of the Family. Celebrating the family also means being aware of changes in it and ensuring that every member of the family can live in dignity if the family is separated or breaks up.

Family law has undergone major reforms over the years. This is not pure coincidence. The family is evolving, it is changing and rules of law must be adjusted to the new reality.

The Constitution splits legislative powers in these fields between the federal and provincial governments. Divorce and corollary measures such as custody and support are regulated by the Divorce Act of 1985.

From a tax point of view, the Income Tax Act provides that, in calculating his income for a taxation year, a taxpayer must include any amount received during that year in the form of allowance or support payments. Conversely, a taxpayer can deduct any amount paid as allowance or support. This is the deduction-inclusion rule.

Many requirements must be met before the amount can be paid or received, and before it can be deductible or taxable. In fact, there are six of them.

The amount must be paid or received as support payment or other type of allowance. It must be paid or received in compliance with a decision from a court of competent jurisdiction, or in compliance with a written agreement. It must be paid or received to support the needs of the recipient, of the children of the marriage, or both. The alimony or allowance must be payable regularly; the spouses or former spouses must be separated by virtue of a divorce, legal separation or written separation agreement. The spouses must live separately at the time the payment is made or received and also the rest of the year.

As you can see, many requirements have to be met before a payment can be made. Once all these conditions are fulfilled, the deduction-inclusion rule comes into play. This tax policy is also based on four principles which the Minister of Finance explained in the report of the federal-provincial-territorial committee on family law.

It is a tax principle that when a deduction is claimed by a taxpayer regarding an expense, the recipient must pay tax on the amount. Recipients of alimony payments must be taxed the same as other taxpayers receiving the same income from other sources. The tax deduction granted to the payer makes the idea of providing support more palatable. Finally, this tax treatment is a form of subsidy which benefits children, since it is an incentive for the payer to provide more support.

Let us go back to each of these points. First, let us look at the deduction-inclusion rule. One approach points to a variety of approaches. For instance, Australia treats support payments as a debt or a non-deductible obligation. In the United States, however, a distinction is made between child support and spousal support. The non-custodial parent pays income tax on child support payments but spousal support is deductible.

These examples indicate the range of variations in terms of tax policy. The deduction-inclusion principle benefits only families where the support payer is in a higher tax bracket than the recipient. Is tax policy fair when it is based on income disparity? Should we not focus our support on low-income single parent families?

Canadian society has changed tremendously since 1942, when the first tax provisions on support payments were introduced. The number of tax brackets has been considerably reduced, and creditors and debtors may be subject to the same tax rates, although one may have a higher income than the other. Finally, if the non-custodial parent has a lower tax rate that the custodial parent, the total amount of taxes paid will be higher.

The tax deduction granted the support payer, which was thought to be an incentive for people to pay support payments, did not have that effect. Support mechanisms had to be put into place when women experienced problems collecting these pay-

ments. In 1974, the Law Reform Commission estimated that in as many as 75 per cent of all cases, people defaulted on their payments.

It is obvious that single parent women-and I am aware my time is running out-are particularly vulnerable economically, and we can turn this situation around to some extent by providing for a tax scheme that would meet their needs.

The government could give this question serious thought and do so quickly. It should revise concepts that are very damaging to the economic security of women who are single parents.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore in favour of amending the Income Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income for their recipients.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, again, in his speech the hon. member referred to this famous infrastructure program. Let me tell you that this program which, according to government members, should solve the unemployment problem in Canada, is in my opinion simply a way to shift the deficit burden to the provinces.

The deficit burden is and will continue to be off loaded on the municipalities since-and I have the figure to prove it-several municipalities in my riding, before they can participate in this infrastructure program, will have to invest an amount about equal to their federal subsidies.

Let me also point out that municipalities willing to participate in this infrastructure program but unable to afford it will have to increase their debt load. Who will pay for this? It is always the same taxpayer who must pay, whether the money comes from the federal, provincial, or municipal government.

I would like to hear his opinion on the money that Canadian taxpayers will have to spend on the infrastructure program, without solving the unemployment problem in Canada and Quebec.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's parody. I think he should immediately sign up, in fact I strongly recommend that he sign up with the Quebec national theatre school. There, he will find an appropriate forum to put his great public speaking skills to the service of Quebecers first and Canadians second. As far as I am concerned, his approach with respect to the people of Canada and Quebec is unacceptable. He has tried to play on the word "vision" and make a joke of it. However, we must admit in this House that the Liberal government has indeed lacked vision in all the projects it has proposed so far.

I will simply remind my hon. colleague that 400,000 jobs are presently vacant with no one to fill them for lack of training, of adequate training that is. I will also remind him that we have 1,500,000 unemployed people in this country. So, can he make a serious commitment to put everything having to do with manpower training, duplication and overlap in the hands of the provinces so to speak, to allow surpluses to be made and millions of dollars to be set aside to help our young people to create, to be creators instead of mere welfare recipients? Is he prepared to admit or submit to his government that job training should come under provincial jurisdiction?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since this morning I have been listening to speeches made by members of the Reform Party, and I wonder why these people want a process that differs from the existing one, while the government is simply asking for a legislative review. The legislation goes back to 1964, which means it is 30 years old. This legislation should be revised, and we already seem to have some idea of what the new legislation will be like. I am sure that the committee formed to review this legislation will make recommendations to the House, which will examine these proposals before it decides to accept them.

Recently, I went around my riding to get the opinion of my constituents on this subject. I must admit that as far as the boundaries of the riding of Chicoutimi are concerned, some municipalities were to be removed from the riding and most came out against the process. Today, residents realize that money has already been committed-as much as $5 million was mentioned-but they are still telling us to "Stop the process. Look at what is wrong with the legislation, because every time they want to make readjustments, they have no regard for boundaries or for the people".

The following is a case in point. The municipalities that were to be removed from my riding are all connected with Saguenay Park and would be added to the riding of Jonquière, although there is no link between the two. I think that after 30 years, it is time to pause and consider what we can do with this legislation and amend it to bring it in line with the twenty-first century.

[Petitions, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and speaking on behalf of my constituents, I wish to present a petition asking the government to fully reinstate the budget for social housing. This petition, with 293 signatures, is being presented to ask the government to act on its responsibility to the most vulnerable members of our society by guaranteeing them the right to housing.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the hon. member opposite for the comments she made in her speech. Since we started this debate on the budget, I believe this is the first time we have heard a Liberal member who is so emphatic about social justice, who tells the government to take its time in carrying out the reforms it plans to make and to examine all sides of the question in order to create the kind of social justice-and I was particularly struck by this comment-that will guarantee a better future for our young people, and the hon. member is to be commended for saying so. Throughout her speech, she repeatedly referred to the future of our young people and the fact that they too will have to make a life for themselves. I am sure that many members of her party will be mindful of what she said in her speech, for the greater benefit of young people in Quebec and Canada.

I understand where the hon. member is coming from, because I have worked with teenagers for many years, and the problems you described and heard described by various people sound familiar. I must say, Madam, I am impressed.

Before we finish, I would like to ask how you intend to persuade the Liberal caucus to share your views?

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer by saying that right now Quebec does not receive the same percentage of taxes that it pays to the federal government. Indeed, we account for 25 per cent of the Canadian population, but barely 21 per cent of the taxes we pay is returned to us. Right there you have an injustice which would be eliminated with a sovereign Quebec.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I must answer in the affirmative, since a sovereign Quebec will eliminate overlapping and duplication, and the money saved will be used to create jobs and to invest in our province, so that young people can get appropriate training based on their needs.

Need-related training means training which will lead to secure and well-paid jobs. The savings made by eliminating this overlapping alone would be enough to revitalize the economy of the region.