André Bellavance

[Income Tax Act, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is a very short time, so I will get right to the point. I would, however, like to thank a few people. First, I thank all the members who participated in the debate. In a democracy it is important to make progress on such issues. I would especially like to thank the hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Chambly—Borduas. Not only did they take part in the debate, but they also helped draft Bill C-445.

I would also like to thank the Liberal and NDP members who showed common sense, as clearly mentioned by the member who just spoke. They want to see some progress on this issue and refer the bill to committee.

I informed the people of my riding any time amendments were made to the bill. I do not understand the Conservatives' arguments to the effect that it could cost $10 billion. However, if someone provides some evidence of that and if we need to amend or change the bill somewhat in order for it to maintain its substance without costing a fortune, clearly, we would be open to that. I made a commitment to the people of my riding and my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour will do the same in his riding. We promised to talk to them and discuss things with them to see if people agree with any proposed amendments. For our part, we are remaining open, as are the Liberals and the NDP, but the Conservative government remains completely uncompromising. It is appalling.

I will continue with my thanks, to keep things on a positive note. Indeed, I am delighted by my colleagues' decision to pass this bill to the next step. That is what matters. We will not give up and we will continue to try to make the Conservatives come to their senses.

I would like to thank those who often go unmentioned and who work in the shadows, our researchers. All of the parties have research services, and in our case Marc-André Roche did an extraordinary job helping us create this bill and making it what it is today—an excellent bill that will help retirees who were shortchanged. Obviously, the House of Commons' law clerks and the people at the Library of Parliament helped as well. We do not often thank them. We do not often talk about them, but we should. As for Marc-André, he is sometimes a night owl. He works at night, and I am convinced that there were times when he was working at three or four in the morning for the workers of Asbestos and Sorel. That deserves a round of applause.

We mentioned their work earlier. The member for Chambly—Borduas spoke about it, but I must do the same. I am talking about the members of the Jeffrey Mine retirees subcommittee in Asbestos and Gaston Fréchette, their president. This man has done an extraordinary job calling all of the members of parliament, signing letters and ensuring that they had the most support possible. Just recently, I was in Asbestos to talk to the Jeffrey mine retirees about everything that has happened to date and where we are in terms of the bill. Once again, there were 120 people in the room to hear what I had to say. Mr. Fréchette had done his job of inviting them; he keeps them incredibly well informed. The Atlas Stainless Steels retirees in Sorel also worked to help develop this bill.

I want to remind members what Bill C-445 is all about. It has to do with a tax credit for loss of retirement income. It would provide a refundable tax credit to a taxpayer in respect of whom an employer and the employees failed to make the contributions required to be made to a registered pension plan. That is what happened with the retirees in Sorel and Asbestos. For example, a retiree whose income drops from $30,000 to $22,000 would receive 22% of the $8,000 lost, which would be a non-taxable amount of $1,760 per year. That is not a fortune.

I often use this example because it can be an average of what people lost. It is worth repeating so that we understand that it does not solve everything, but it would at least partially rectify an injustice.

I see that I have only one minute left. This is the first time I have ever made such a short speech in the House.

I can say and repeat to my constituents, to the people of Sorel, that we will not give up on them. I am calling on the Conservative members from Quebec in particular. Mr. Fréchette personally called the Conservative members from Quebec to ask them to support this bill. When you speak out against the Bloc Québécois, you often say that you have an influence in the government and that you can make things happen. Prove it. Make things happen for the retirees of Asbestos and Sorel. We must ensure that the government, that the Conservatives, listen to these people for once. Then, we will be able to say that you have an influence and that you have done something for the retirees.

Until then, unfortunately, the opposite will be true. You still have time. The vote has not happened yet. We are counting on you to have an influence and live up to your claims.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member very much for his question. He is right to say it is the Conservatives who are the experts in filibusters. It is easy to see that in some of the committees. There have been a host of problems at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Among other things, the chairs have been thrown out of both. The Conservatives do not have any lessons to give us, therefore, because we are doing our job in the House.

In reply to his particular question—because that is what interests us today—I would say that the hon. member is quite right to wonder whether the first nations in Quebec, and especially northern Quebec, experience the same problems. These problems of poverty, suicide, and drug addiction are found in Quebec too.

In isolated areas in the north in particular, as the hon. member said, the isolation adds to the problems he just described. That is why we are telling the government not to close its eyes to this situation.

The hon. member is quite right when he says that the Indian Act is ridiculous and out of touch. Nobody wants it any more but it is still there. When I say “nobody”, I mean mostly the first nations, of course, who have to deal with an antiquated act—there is no other word for it.

Some hon. members in this House have said it is a racist, oppressive act. I think all these adjectives apply. The government should not just note what is happening but try to do something about the situation of these peoples, who have even worse problems when they are isolated. Just think of some of these communities. The hon. member himself mentioned houses that are ill-suited to the far north or were built elsewhere.

It is the same in Quebec. In some communities, the houses were not built with any consideration at all of the climate or the fact that many people live in each one. It is common among the first nations for a number of people to live together in the same house. That often results in humidity problems. Then there are problems with running water. All these problems should be corrected as soon as absolutely possible.

We were talking a while ago about the Auditor General and her report. Even today there are thousands of native children living in extreme poverty. Someone, somewhere has closed their eyes and it is time now to open them.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am insulted to be told that I am taking part in some kind of stalling tactic or filibuster when I clearly explained my interest in this issue. When I was elected, I served as the deputy aboriginal affairs critic for the Bloc Québécois and closely followed the work of the aboriginal affairs committees before I was appointed as the agriculture and agri-food critic. I did not stop taking an interest in aboriginal affairs, even after I was assigned to another portfolio.

I do not understand why I am being accused of something when I am just doing my job as a parliamentarian. Yesterday, I listened to all the members who spoke about this issue, and a number of the speeches were extremely interesting. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians should listen to them as well. As I said, despite what he claims, this bill is going to emancipate aboriginal people and even bring them wealth. We have to tell it like it is: this bill would establish a tribunal, which is a good thing, a step forward, but it will not solve all the serious problems on reserves.

I agree with him that the aboriginal people want to be emancipated. That is true. This bill is a step in the right direction. Signing the UN declaration would be not only a step in the right direction, but a huge step in the right direction, a demonstration of this government's determination to improve the lot of the first nations.

However, I will not stand for being told that we are using delaying tactics when we have clearly stated that we support this bill. I have an interest in this issue. The critic from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked me whether I wanted to take part in this debate, but he did not tell me that we were engaging in some sort of stalling tactics. I am surprised at these insults this morning.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join today's debate on C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

My modest contribution is not about to significantly alter this bill. After all, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is the Bloc Québécois critic for aboriginal issues, and he has worked hard to move this file forward. I know that the Bloc Québécois is also supporting this bill. And so I would like to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for all of his work. You should also know that he is a lawyer. As this bill concerns a tribunal, I am sure that his expertise was an asset, notably at committee, in creating the bill that we have here today.

As with all bills, there are most likely flaws. Nothing in this world is perfect. And often, even when we think a bill is perfect, we see some measures that could be different, improved even, once the bill is implemented. However, one thing is clear: this is a step in the right direction, and so the Bloc Québécois has decided to support this bill.

Throughout my speech, I will point out certain shortcomings, or rather, areas for improvement, particularly with respect to aboriginal affairs. Unfortunately, even now, in 2008, there are many problems that are just as prevalent and just as serious. Yesterday, I listened to several speeches by my colleagues in the House of Commons. Members on both sides realized that there is still a lot of work to do, and that is why we have to participate in this debate in order to improve aboriginals' quality of life across Canada and Quebec.

In 2004, deputy Indian affairs critic was my first portfolio, and I was also the globalization critic. Quite frankly, I knew very little about the portfolio. As a former reporter, I was interested in all kinds of current events, but I did not have a very good understanding of that portfolio.

However, I had the opportunity and good fortune to work with the first aboriginal person from Quebec to be elected to the House of Commons in 2004, Bernard Cleary. I worked with him on the Indian affairs file. Mr. Cleary was a negotiator for aboriginals for 40 years. Naturally, he participated in a lot of negotiations with governments. As a result, he knew what he was talking about in the House, during committee meetings and during meetings with the minister and first nations representatives. He set a very good example not only in his approach to negotiation, but also in his approach to problems that were often absolutely dreadful.

In committee, in my earpiece, I have heard interpreters cry because we were talking about what had happened in the residential schools. Mr. Cleary taught me to evaluate these situations and to treat them and the people we met with great respect. He was a good teacher. That is not the reason I am talking about this issue today, but I wanted you to understand why I care so much about Indian affairs.

Without further ado, I would like to talk briefly about the objectives of Bill C-30. The purpose of this bill is to create an independent tribunal, the specific claims tribunal. It also seeks to bring greater fairness to the way specific claims are handled in Canada and to expedite the resolution process. Bill C-30 is therefore designed to improve and expedite the specific claim resolution process in Canada. Since 1947, a number of joint and Senate committees have recommended creating such an independent tribunal to resolve specific claims. Moreover, I learned that the first nations have been talking about and calling for such a tribunal for more than 60 years.

Negotiations will still be the preferred method of resolving claims. This is important, because we know that the first nations prefer to negotiate with the federal government. The tribunal would have the power to hand down binding decisions when claims are not accepted for negotiation or negotiations fail. Briefly, that is the overall objective of this bill, which represents a step forward on this issue.

The Bloc Québécois has always had a very clear position not only on this bill, but on aboriginal affairs in general. The testimony the committee heard answered some of our initial questions. As I said, to us, no bill is perfect, and bad faith on the legislator's part is not necessarily to blame for imperfections. But we often find that there is a need for improvement. That is why, in committee, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the deputy critic improved the bill.

The bill would establish the specific claims tribunal, which would make binding decisions. It could expedite the resolution of 784 claims. That is quite something, and that is why this bill must be passed.

Canada's first nations had some involvement in creating this bill. This may pose a problem. Although there was some first nations involvement, I know that the first nations of Quebec and Labrador unfortunately did not take part in the negotiations.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of passing Bill C-30, but I have two important points I would like to discuss.

The federal government must properly consult first nations before introducing any bill that may affect them. It needs to do the consultation itself in order to start the reconciliation process. The Bloc Québécois would like to remind members that the government did not hold proper consultations for Bill C-30; the government should develop a real structure for consultation with first nations. Each time there is a first nations bill, the government must negotiate with them and develop a strict and well-established system so that later on, no one can point to a lack of communication between the government and first nations peoples.

The Bloc Québécois would also like to remind members that the bill is connected to a political agreement between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in relation to special claims reform. We are very interested in seeing how the government follows through on this agreement and, in particular, the commitments it has made.

I would like to mention some interesting statistics that will show how important it is that we move forward with this bill.

Since 1973, 1,297 special claims have been filed and 513 have been resolved. To resolve these claims, Canada has paid between $15,000—the lowest amount—and $125 million, for an average of $6.5 million per claim.

Of these claims, 284 have been resolved through negotiation, and 229 by other means, either through an administrative avenue or through closing the case. As I was saying earlier, there are currently 784 unresolved claims, and they are targeted in this bill.

Of the claims in process, 138 special claims are in negotiation across the country, and 34 are being handled by the Indian Specific Claims Commission. Those are the statistics.

I repeat, numerous claims and many problems still need to be resolved. The timing on this is good—or bad, depending on which side of the fence you are on—because last week, on May 6, the Auditor General released her report, which obviously looked into the matter of aboriginal children. I say “obviously” because this situation urgently demands greater efforts on the part of the government.

I would like to read a bit from that report. In chapter 4, the Auditor General points out that a number of problems remain to be resolved. I will also be talking about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is another question that must be looked at much more carefully by this government, which still refuses to sign the declaration.

In chapter 4, which is entitled “First Nations Child and Family Services Program—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the Auditor General reviews how the department manages the program through which it provides services to first nations children and families on reserves.

In accordance with federal government policy, these services must comply with provincial legislation and standards, must be comparable to services provided in similar circumstances to children living off reserve and of course must be culturally appropriate for first nations peoples.

Chapter 4 of the Auditor General's most recent report shows that funding for child welfare services on reserves is not fulfilling the federal government's obligations. It also shows that more than 5% of first nations children living on reserves in Canada are under the care of community or provincial child welfare services, for a total of over 8,000 children every year. This proportion is eight times higher than children in care off reserves. I said earlier that the situation must be resolved without delay, or at the very least, greater efforts made to improve it. The Auditor General is appealing for help. She is speaking out on behalf of these children and families, who still face this very serious problem.

The Auditor General noted that Indian and Northern Affairs had not analysed and compared on-reserve services with those offered in neighbouring communities. That must be corrected. In addition, the department had not identified the other health and social services available to support child welfare services on the reserves. Once again, the message is intended for the government.

In fact, the needs of children taken into care by first nations organizations vary considerably. Some children and their families do not receive the services they need because the funding formula for these services is outdated. The Auditor General made another point: the funding formula for on-reserve services has not been modified since 1988 even though the first nations have the highest birth rate in the country.

Finally, I raised another point: the Auditor General recommended that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should resolve the differences with Health Canada related to their respective funding responsibilities for children in care. This may be a problem of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. There must be more concerted communication among departments to ensure that the changes requested by the Auditor General are carried out.

We do not really need the Auditor General to know all about the problems of drinking water, housing, addiction, suicide and so forth, because the media unfortunately keep us well informed. This information is useful but once we have it what do we do? Although we may not need the Auditor General to point this out, she has nevertheless targeted other problems that the general public may not familiar with or that do not receive as much media coverage. Nevertheless, with regard to these problems, we note once again that the most vulnerable often pay the price for the government's lax approach. In speaking of the most vulnerable I am also referring to the weakest: children are among those calling for help.

Earlier I was talking about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is another example of an area where the government should be demonstrating a lot more leadership. There simply is no leadership there. Only four countries in the world have refused to sign the declaration and, unfortunately, to our great shame, Canada is one of those countries. Canada still has not ratified this important Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I read that more than 100 jurists and experts have criticized the Conservative government's lack of leadership and pointed out in an open letter that this government's legal arguments to justify its refusal do not hold water.

The Conservatives give very little importance to recognizing human rights. In addition to refusing to ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have also abolished the court challenges program, the preferred tool of minorities wanting to exercise their rights, and let us not forget the government's draconian funding cuts to Status of Women Canada and to the aboriginal literacy program.

There is no use in the government talking about how very important it is to help aboriginals, to improve their conditions and quality of life, when it keeps cutting and cutting. Otherwise, who will pay the bill?

Obviously those who would have received the services that have been abolished, that is who. In this specific case, refusing to become involved more specifically in the services offered to aboriginals will not improve the situation.

The United Nations has worked patiently and thoroughly, together with aboriginal peoples, for more than 20 years to come up with this tool for defending aboriginal rights. Unfortunately, the government is rejecting all this work out of hand.

We have another warning for the government. We are supporting Bill C-30, which is a step in the right direction. In the meantime, the government and its minister have to understand that the situation is not getting any better. Even though this bill is a step in the right direction as far as specific claims are concerned, the government's policy falls short when it comes to aboriginal rights.

Something really shocks me, and I want to choose my words very carefully. I learned yesterday that this government is prepared to invest $30 billion in military equipment. At the same time, Status of Women Canada programs are being slashed, the court challenges program was eliminated and there have been cuts in aboriginal literacy programs. Certainly people do not understand what is going on. I want to choose my words very carefully. Here is my point: I am not saying that we should not have a defence policy, but the problem is that the policy still does not exist. All that is being done is to announce that $30 billion will be invested over a 20-year period to buy all sorts of equipment.

First, there should be a very precise foreign affairs and national defence policy, so that we can determine what we need. Yesterday, in fact, some of the soldiers who attended the Prime Minister's press conference spoke publicly, as the newspapers reported today, saying this was just a sprinkling of money. They say they will be buying planes or this or that other equipment, but no one is sure whether this is the equipment that is really needed in the field. There has to be some housecleaning done in this regard. I will end my parenthetical comment here so as not to confuse things.

On the one hand, we see this pathetic situation on the aboriginal reserves, where there are people whom we should be looking after, since the federal government is trustee for the aboriginal peoples. On the other hand, we get announcements of billions and billions of dollars for military equipment. There is a big disconnect, an enormous gulf between the public's real needs and this government's goals.

To get back to the bill, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports the aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and recognition of rights. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the 11 aboriginal nations of Quebec for what they are, nations. The Bloc Québécois also recognizes the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples who are entitled to their cultures, their languages, their customs and their traditions, and to their right to decide for themselves how to go about developing their own identity.

We have had a lot of discussion this week and last week about the history of the birth of Canada, which the Conservative government is trying to rewrite, as we celebrate the 400th anniversary of Quebec. Some absolutely absurd things have been said, like some of the documents that have been released. Nonetheless, everyone has to agree on one thing: the aboriginal people were here before Jacques Cartier arrived, and before anyone came to spend time in Newfoundland or elsewhere. The first nations were here. We agree on that. We must respect that fact absolutely.

Speaking of respect, we cannot let the Erasmus-Dussault report go unmentioned. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples submitted a comprehensive report that proposed far-reaching changes over a period of 20 years leading to self-government for aboriginal peoples by respecting their customs, cultures, languages and ancestral institutions. Since that time, the Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the federal government to act on the report's recommendations.

This is another warning. This program has been in place since 1996, but there are still many recommendations from the report that the government must act on.

I will conclude by talking about implementation of the bill. There are three scenarios in which a first nation could file a claim with the tribunal. The first is when Canada turns down a claim for negotiation but fails to meet the three-year time limit for assessing claims. The second is at any stage in the negotiation process, if all parties agree.

The third occurs after three years of unsuccessful negotiation. The tribunal will examine only questions of fact and law to determine whether Canada has a lawful obligation to a first nation.

All of that to say that we now have an opportunity to improve the situation, and I am convinced that all parties in this House will support this bill.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member who just spoke on this issue. He has regularly risen in this House to defend the aboriginal communities that are unfortunately still dealing with absurd situations today, in 2008. Whether these situations exist because of negligence, or any other reason, the fact remains that the government did not do its job.

I would like the member to comment on the Auditor General's latest report. The report shows, once again, that aboriginal children are living in despair and dire poverty. Nothing has been resolved. I would like to know what the member, whom I sat with on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, thinks. I know that he is very concerned with aboriginal affairs, which is why his opinion would be very important to hear in this House.

[Chrysotile, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is joining the Chrysotile Institute, the United Steelworkers and Quebec's Mouvement PROChrysotile to denounce the NDP position on banning chrysotile.

This position does not take into account recent studies on the safe use of chrysotile. The NDP does not have the necessary expertise to take the place of the expert committee set up by Health Canada. Union representatives believe that the NDP did not take into account the work of the Chrysotile Institute and the worker's movement to respect the Geneva Convention and promote the safe use of chrysotile. The NDP has simply dismissed the jobs related to this industry. The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to implement the unanimous report of the international trade subcommittee recommending that it adopt a chrysotile policy based on information, promotion and safe use.

That is another example of how only the Bloc Québécois understands and is defending the interests of hundreds of workers in the Asbestos and Thetford Mines regions.

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, with 15 seconds, here is my answer: I agree entirely.

To allay the members' fears, we can provide all the necessary information, if they agree to send the bill to committee. That would obviously be the best solution.

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in my speech. I gave figures. When it comes to pension benefits, some people do not get the same as others. We estimate that the entire cost would only be $5 million for the two industries, the two we know about. We did not find others, but there may be a third.

We have to understand that it is a question of retirees who will sooner or later be able to use the tax credit once the bill is passed. Some of them will pass away. In some cases, like in Sorel, retired employees who were unfortunately shortchanged when the businesses closed are no longer there. Spouses who are entitled to a pension could also use a portion of this tax credit.

In total, the entire cost of this measure would not exceed much more than $5 million.

That is my answer to the member's question. In all fairness, this is the type of proposal or bill that everyone in this House should make sure gets passed.

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

moved that Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you do not get the feeling that I am always talking, since I just spoke during another debate. I want to say that this bill is particularly close to my heart and that I am moved today as I speak to this issue, not only because this is my bill, but because a number of people worked on this bill. These people deserve our consideration, and that is why we drafted such a measure.

I will briefly explain Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income). This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to provide a refundable tax credit to a taxpayer in respect of whom an employer and the employees failed to make the contributions required to be made to a registered pension plan. It was introduced at first reading on May 17, 2007. Today, nearly one year later, we are ready to debate it at second reading. It is making good progress. We hope that the bill will move quickly through Parliament so that the people affected get what is coming to them.

I will give a brief account of how this bill came to be. In my riding, the Jeffrey mine, a chrysotile mine, went bankrupt, throwing many people out of work. Unfortunately, their retirement fund also disappeared like snow in the sun because there was a loophole when the company went bankrupt. People lost a great deal of money in all this. For years, Jeffrey mine retirees used every possible means to obtain some compensation. The Government of Quebec gave a certain amount of money at a given point, but it was a one-time contribution that did not cover their losses.

What could be done? These people came to see me to determine what could be done. At the same time, retirees from Atlas Steels, in Sorel, also went to see their MP, who will speak in a few moments. We worked together, along with the member for Chambly—Borduas who worked very effectively on this file, to see what could be done at the federal level to help these people.

Mr. Gaston Fréchette, chair of the Jeffrey Mine retirees subcommittee in Asbestos, in my riding, represents more than 1,000 retirees who worked at the mine. There are about 1,200 in all. In addition, Mr. Pierre Saint-Michel is the chair of the Atlas Steels retirees group, which has just under 300 members. These people and their supporters—there are many—truly worked with us. Mr. Fréchette came up with the idea of a tax credit. We met with them here and we held press conferences in Asbestos and in the riding of the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who also participated in these discussions. Together, we came up with the basis for Bill C-445.

When I said that this was an issue close to my heart and that I was moved speaking about the bill, it is because I saw these people wrack their brains, approach us and ask what we could do to help them. And then they worked on the bill with us so that we could introduce it. I would therefore like to thank not only Mr. Fréchette and Mr. Saint-Michel but all those individuals and retirees who helped out. I would like to extend a very warm thank you to the members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Chambly—Borduas because, without them, there would not be a bill.

I would like to briefly explain what this bill will do once it comes into force. As I was saying, it would create a refundable tax credit for loss of retirement income. Many retirees have seen their income drop because their retirement fund was running a deficit when their company ceased operations. That is what happened to people who retired from Atlas Stainless Steels, which belongs to Ontario's Slater Steel, and from the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, closer to home. To help retirees caught in this situation, we propose creating a refundable tax credit for loss of retirement income.

This refundable tax credit, which would amount to 22% of lost income, would not affect retirees' income, whether or not they pay income tax. The credit would also be transferrable to a surviving spouse and would apply to both money purchase and defined benefit plans. Accordingly, a retiree whose income drops from $30,000 to $20,000 would receive 22% of the $8,000 lost, which would be a non-taxable amount of $1,760.

We do not believe that retirees should have trouble making ends meet because they are not receiving the retirement income they contributed to for years. That is what happened to retirees from Atlas Stainless Steels in Sorel-Tracy, whose income has dropped between 28% and 58% since July 1, 2005, and is still dropping.

Passing this bill will make it possible for all retirees caught in this kind of situation to recover part of the money lost. Take, for example, retirees from the Jeffrey mine. Since 2003, they have lost $55 million from their pension fund and $30 million in benefits.

Of course, this bill would not be retroactive. My colleagues should understand that when it comes into force, this bill will apply to the previous tax year. We will not be able to go any farther back than that.

Retirees whose complementary pension fund is smaller than it should have been will be compensated, as will surviving spouses, when they are entitled to part of the income.

The tax credit is 22%. Some may wonder where we came up with that figure. It corresponds to the federal marginal tax rate that applies to the middle class. For people whose income is between $36,000 and $72,000, the tax rate is 22%. That is where we came up with that percentage.

The tax credit is refundable so that everyone can take advantage of it, even those whose incomes are very low and who do not pay taxes. It is a matter of social justice for us. We thought about this. I know that this morning, a ruling was unfortunately made concerning royal assent. From what I understand, if the tax credit had not been refundable, the decision would have been different. We are bound by the royal assent, but I hope that the government will listen to reason.

We made this choice thinking of the poorest members of society. We knew that some people had lost their retirement income, and that some of them had even less money than others. A non-refundable tax credit would have benefited only those with more money. Some people would have been eligible, but I think, unfortunately, that most of our retirees would not have been able to take advantage of the tax credit. That might have been a step in the right direction, but I think it would have been unfair to do it that way. That is why we went with the idea of a refundable tax credit in the bill.

I just explained that low-income people would have essentially been left out. The elected members, at least these three members, as well as the people from the two retiree committees I mentioned earlier, felt that the bill should apply to everyone, especially the least well off. I would like to congratulate the members of the retiree committees who were also thinking of their less fortunate colleagues.

We have to determine how many people this will affect in Quebec. I have heard rumours that the government thinks this measure would take a big chunk out of the consolidated revenue fund. I can say that in Quebec, we have found only two cases where the bill would help now-retired victims of business closures. I am referring to the two cases we have been talking about since the beginning of this debate— Atlas Steels in Sorel and the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos. These are victims of very exceptional cases—I do not know if we can call them very exceptional, but exceptional at the very least—that should never happen again.

Take Quebec for example, again. The Quebec government changed its legislation to require improved capitalization of money purchase benefit plans. And there should not be many cases that come up in Canada either. In Ontario, there is a government fund set up to replenish the pension plans of employees who find themselves in a similar situation. Luckily, governments have made adjustments so that there will not be any more situations like those that the retirees in Asbestos and Sorel have had to deal with.

We are now seeing measures like this in a number of provinces. Perhaps there are former workers from the St. Anne Nackawic Pulp Company Limited in New Brunswick who might be eligible—our research service looked into this. We could study the file in committee, since we have not been able to determine if this is the case or not. More examples like this could come up, but it would not involve many workers.

But even though this may not affect many people, we cannot simply wash our hands of it and stop worrying. Quite the opposite. One thing is certain: we are talking about very few cases and about exceptional situations. The fact that they are exceptional does not mean that they are any less important for the people involved.

We are talking about people who contributed to their employer's pension fund their entire lives only to end up with almost nothing once they retire.

The intention of Bill C-445 is not to hand out a lump sum payment, but to provide an annual payment equivalent to 22% of the loss. If we take the actuarial deficit of the two retirement funds for the people we are talking about, we expect this to cost roughly $1.7 million in the first year for Quebec. Obviously, that amount will decrease over the years as the number of former employees decreases. For all of Canada this measure is estimated to cost between $3 million and $5 million, again if we take the example of the retirees I am referring to. More may be discovered with the current provincial measures, and if we look back, but note that this measure is not retroactive. In cases such as Singer and others, retirees have been compensated. At first we thought about including those cases in our bill, but they are different cases. This exception really only concerns two industries, two companies in Quebec and maybe one in New Brunswick.

Why does this issue concern the federal government? The federal government has a constitutional right to legislate while respecting the supremacy of provincial and Quebec legislation, of course, with respect to old age pensions and additional benefits, including survivor benefits and disability benefits, regardless of age. That is one of the reasons. The compensation set out in Bill C-445—and I wish to emphasize this—is provided as a tax credit. It has no impact on other government program benefits, does not interfere in any way in provincial social programs and is therefore very respectful of the division of powers. The Bloc Québécois would never show up with a bill calling on the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. That is why I wanted to emphasize this, in case that was what anyone was thinking, but that would surprise me. Most parties here understand what I am saying. The government has a say in this type of procedure.

There are other reasons as well. With a monetary policy that produces recurring deficits and a fiscal policy that does not allow the government to build up a surplus in good years, Ottawa is also responsible for providing relief for retirees who have to pay the price. These are good reasons why the federal government has a role to play in this issue.

I should mention that the coverage by the local press has been very interesting, and I want to thank the local media that have taken an interest in the cause. I will give just one example, because I want to give my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour a chance to make his speech. The local media in my riding have covered the story of the Jeffrey mine retirees for a long time. They are involved in an ongoing legal battle, but that is something quite apart from what we are discussing today. This is an issue that regularly makes the news.

I want to read from the May 26, 2007 issue of Les Actualités, the Asbestos newspaper, which refers to this issue and gives a good summary of the situation. I am reading from the front page:

The 1,200 Jeffrey mine retirees who have been fighting for four years to obtain redress after losing their group insurance are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. A bill that would create a refundable tax credit for the loss of retirement income has just been introduced in the House of Commons.

This was very good news.

In conclusion, I want to extend my warmest thanks to Gaston Fréchette, the chair of the Jeffrey mine retirees subcommittee, for raising awareness in this House. He decided to send letters—signed also by the president of the Sorel retirees—to all the members to make them aware of this issue. Mr. Fréchette, who is one of the retirees, also called all the members from Quebec, regardless of their party, to ask them to support this bill. That is what I am also doing today. I am calling on my colleagues to do justice to these people and support Bill C-445.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, to answer my colleague's question, the Government of Quebec has established a policy on the use of biofuels. It is quite similar, since Quebec hopes to increase the use of ethanol in fuel to 5% by 2012. Once again, Quebec has made a choice. The government, and probably a vast majority of the population, decided that this ethanol should be cellulosic ethanol.

There are pilot plants, as I mentioned earlier. We must therefore encourage the development of this new ethanol production. If we simply say that this is how it is, that it is in the works, nothing will get done. I therefore hope that the Conservative government, which has established its own policy for the use of ethanol in fuel, will allocate the funds needed to ensure that these new alternatives can be developed and that it does not simply say that it will change the crops in our fields, as is the case in some countries, to make fuel. That is where the danger lies.

The current food crisis was not brought about exclusively by the use of biofuels, or agrofuels as some people are now calling them, for there are many other factors involved. Consider the stock market speculation concerning food, the droughts there have been, especially in Australia, which is a major wheat producer and has been suffering drought conditions for years, which cause productivity problems. Consider also China and India, where there are more and more people who now have the means to feed themselves a little better.

Another thing that concerns me is the rising price of food products. We cannot blame biofuels alone, given that rice is the product that has risen the most in cost in recent months. It has gone up nearly 100%. To my knowledge, there is not a single grain of rice fueling any vehicles. The price of milk has also gone up rather outrageously and I am pretty sure that no one is putting milk in their gas tanks.

I am not saying that biofuels have no impact. They do. We must be extremely vigilant about this, but many other factors are also at play.