House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Joliette (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees Of The House February 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the finance committee who attended the committee's sittings wish to thank all the groups and experts who came to testify before the committee. Since today, they are away on business in their constituencies, I will express our party's dissenting opinion.

After several attempts to reach a consensus, the Bloc Quebecois had to reject the majority report tabled by the finance committee.

The official opposition is not against the principle of family trusts as such. However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot endorse the conclusions of the committee that favour maintaining Bill C-92, which allows wealthy Canadian families to use family trusts as a tax shelter. According to the experts who testified before the committee, the tax revenues forgone as a result of Bill C-92 would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Bloc Quebecois was also surprised at the complete reversal of the position taken by the Liberal Party of Canada which, when it was in the opposition, vigorously condemned Bill C-92. Today, by tabling this report, the Liberals put their seal of approval on the deferral of capital gains tax for the next twenty or thirty years and have thus refused to abolish the tax privileges of the wealthy.

In concluding, I would like to say that, for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois demands, in its dissenting opinion, that the family trust system be amended so as to tax the capital gains of these family trusts.

Federal Public Service February 22nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, what guarantee can the minister give people that laying off thousands of public servants will not as in the past give rise to a substantial increase in contracting-out which does not necessarily allow for savings but which is highly conducive to government patronage?

Federal Public Service February 22nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The government plans to cut 45,000 employees from the federal public service over three years and, to this end, intends to move unilaterally to introduce legislation eliminating job security for public servants.

Can the minister responsible for the public service explain why his government has chosen to push aside the proposals made by the largest union representing nearly 70 per cent of federal public servants, without having first exhausted every possible alternative through free collective bargaining?

Supply February 15th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this opportunity he is giving me to add a few comments. Since the tabling of the last government budget, the Bloc Quebecois has gone out of its way to propose numerous solutions to help reduce the deficit. One of the first measures we recommended

was the creation of a joint committee on the financial situation. The Bloc Quebecois would have participated and we could have studied possible solutions together, out in the open. The government refused.

Given that situation, we took a different approach. We proposed solutions to the Standing Committee on Finance. We asked that government pass legislation to prohibit family trusts as we know them today, because they are tax havens for a privileged few in our society. These are real solutions. There are billions of dollars in those trusts.

Here in this House, and also in committee, we suggested that the government should focus more on finance and tax control. I have just spent the last ten minutes talking about taxes. Just think that there are now $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes which delinquent taxpayers will not pay; $6 billion is a lot of money and the interest on such an amount adds up to more millions. We asked the government to provide for stricter controls on those overdue accounts.

We asked the government to look into the issue of businesses, tens of thousands of businesses, which have not paid taxes over the last ten years, in spite of profits earned in Canada. Why do we allow those companies to profit from such a tax exemption system, albeit a legal one? That is not normal; all taxpayers, corporations as well as individuals, should pay their fair share of taxes in Canada. That is another solution that we proposed to the government.

We also proposed to slim down the government machinery. We talked about that many times. We also asked the government to avoid duplication in the various administration sectors, duplication of provincial and federal spending in the same areas.

These are suggestions that we made to the federal government and, each time, we were met with an outright refusal. Why? Because in each of these solutions, the government saw an opportunity to decentralize its powers to the provinces, which it does not want to do, because its leitmotiv is to further centralize powers and to leave the provinces with their problems.

It is clear today that this government does not intend to make concessions to the provinces. On the contrary, it intends to give them more responsibilities, without the tax points which would go with those responsibilities.

Supply February 15th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am happy today to speak to the motion presented by my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I think it is important for the official opposition to raise once again this pressing matter which the government should address, but about which it keeps on procrastinating.

The government is supposed to present its budget very soon; it was said to be in early February; but it would appear that it will not be until late February or even early March. The social reform was announced for the fall; it had been postponed until winter and now it is postponed indefinitely. In the meantime, the situation is deteriorating, the deficit and the debt are increasing.

Why is the government dragging its heels? It is dragging its heels because it knows it must take steps which are going to hurt. It is afraid to do anything which will make it the enemy of the people or which will cause the vast majority of Canadians to hate it.

In the past, we have made many suggestions on how to solve the deficit problem. We have offered numerous options to the government in order to solve this problem without raising taxes, but it refuses to listen. The solutions it favours, the only ones it is considering are those aimed at the majority of people, namely the under-privileged members of our society.

What we are proposing instead is that the government target the minority of Canadians who are more fortunate, the people and corporations which are in a position to contribute more through their taxes. However, because these corporations, these executives, these wealthy people are friends of the government, it is reluctant to tackle a job which is most urgent. It refuses to assume its responsibilities for fear of alienating those Quebecers who are about to vote, in the referendum, in favour of a flexible Canada, a flexible constitution.

The present government is playing hide and seek, when we require openness. In my speech, I would like to emphasize the collection of unpaid taxes owed to the federal government.

My colleagues already talked about other aspects of the motion. They talked about trimming the fat from the government. True, we could save millions by doing that, but when we talk about trimming the fat, we do not mean simply cutting jobs in the civil service. It is not true to say that all depends on the number of civil servants. If there are too many, fine, by all means cut, but I hope the cuts are going to be fairly spread among the various provinces, not made in the way recently announced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. If a 25 per cent reduction in spending is anticipated, I hope we will not see a 33 per cent cut in Quebec, as is expected.

That is not the only way to trim the fat from the government. To trim the fat, we could have only one bus service to take members of Parliament from their offices to the House of Commons. The same bus service could be used by members of both houses to reduce the cost. We never talked about that. Each House wants its own staff, its own accommodations, its own transportation system, its own allowances. We have two sets of everything; yet we still wonder what purpose the other place serves. However, no expense is spared.

I will not dwell on this issue any longer, because I want to come back to what I said earlier about recovering delinquent taxes. The auditor general made several comments on that topic. Most taxpayers pay their taxes when they file their income tax return or when they get a notice of assessment. But sometimes, measures have to be taken to recover, for example, unpaid balances or tax deductions at source. Also, an employer can forget to remit on time to the government the tax deductions at source. Or some taxpayers can deliberately neglect to pay their taxes.

Let me describe briefly the situation we have. Right now, there is about $6.6 billion in delinquent taxes, that is unpaid taxes that should have been paid. These $6.6 billion are owed by some 1.6 million taxpayers. These are the numbers we had as of December 31, 1993. Of these $6.6 billion, $3.6 billion were owed by individuals, self-employed workers, corporations, and include source deductions by employers.

Of that amount, $900 million had been owed for less than 90 days. This was the case in 1993 for 21 per cent of taxpayers in arrears. And $250 million had been owed for more than 90 days on small amounts. But $5.35 million had been owed for more than 90 days on larger amounts. This was the case for 25 per cent of delinquent taxpayers.

Thus, of the 1.6 million delinquent taxpayers or corporations, 25 per cent, or some 400,000, representing the smallest group, owe more than $5 billion in taxes. That is to say that each of these 400,000 taxpayers owes a lot of tax money to the government. These are not humble and poor people. They are not people who are always in need.

On the Public Accounts Committee, we were told that we sometimes go easy on the people who have some difficulty in paying, because we do not want them to go bankrupt. We say: "We have to be understanding. Sometimes, you know, floods or fires occur. So companies are given more time to pay their taxes".

But for individuals whose income tax is deducted from their pay cheques, not even a flood will stop their employer from taking off their share of income tax and sending it directly to the government. Even if a fire destroys their home, these individuals will not be able to use the money that their employer has already deducted from their pay cheques for tax purposes. For salaried employees, the income tax is collected immediately. And for those who have different means of paying their income tax, the state is always willing to show some understanding, which gives these people an opportunity not only to take advantage of the system, but in many cases to abuse the system.

I think that the government must take action to give the Department of Revenue more control over individuals and corporations that owe taxes to the government. There has to be greater control if the just society that we have heard so much about in this country is to be reflected in the way Canadians pay their taxes. If we want a just society, everybody must pay their fair share of taxes. We must not have half of the population paying taxes for the other half.

I know that my time has expired. I still have a lot to say and I hope that the questions and comments period will give me an opportunity to complete my remarks.

Public Service February 10th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. A week ago during a public debate, the minister admitted that between 10,000 and 12,000 federal public servants would lose their jobs in the Ottawa-Hull region, including 4,000 in the Outaouais, which represents more than one-third of the total cuts.

Could the minister explain why, as he was reported to have said in Le Droit , more than 33 per cent of these cuts will affect the Outaouais, which provides only 25 per cent of the federal public servants in the Ottawa-Hull region?

The Budget February 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance could perhaps explain to us in what context the meeting occurred, if it did not occur in the way I described. Also, given the disastrous impact that a one per cent tax on capital accrued in RRSPs and pension funds would have, will the Minister of Finance commit to immediately and unequivocally ruling out this tax which would cost taxpayers, mostly from the middle class, some $5 billion?

The Budget February 9th, 1995

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

According to the Liberal member for Gander-Grand Falls, senior finance officials have already presented the measures that the Minister of Finance plans to take in the next budget to influential business people and bankers.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that he is considering the following measures, among others: a $4 billion reduction in transfer payments, a one per cent increase in the GST rate and a one per cent tax on the capital held in pension funds and RRSPs?

Public Service February 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, both statements cannot be true. How can the President of the Treasury Board stand up and say that no public servants are being paid to do nothing when his Prime Minister said exactly the opposite?

Public Service February 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in this House, the Prime Minister continued to maintain, after checking with the Privy Council, that there are federal public servants who are paid to sit around and do nothing. And again, yesterday, he was contradicted by his President of the Treasury Board, who said that he was aware of no one being paid to stay at home and do nothing.

The Prime Minister must have made further inquiries since yesterday. Can he tell us now how many public servants, in the Privy Council's estimation, are being paid to do nothing and where they can be found?