André Bellavance

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague from Montcalm and my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for bringing forth again an issue that is so important, especially for me.

As you surely know, this is not the first time that I rise in this House to speak to this issue that affects my riding. There are about 1,400 supply managed farms in the Centre-du-Québec region and about 760 in the Estrie region. These are the two regions that border my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska.

In the Arthabaska RCM, there are 397 dairy, poultry and egg farms. There are 137 supply managed farms in the Val-Saint-François RCM and 90 in the Asbestos RCM. All this to say that this is an important issue in my area. We hope that the government and the other parties in the House will feel the same and support Motion M-163.

A good part of my local platform—and I was the only candidate in my riding to have one—dealt with agriculture, and much of that addressed supply management.

We met with SM5 people during the election campaign and everyone was quick to sign the SM5, with the exception of the Liberal candidate, who took some persuading but eventually did so also. It must be kept in mind, moreover, that all party leaders here now signed it during the 2004 election campaign.

Members of all parties, Conservatives, NDP and Liberals—no need to add the Bloc Québécois, since our leader is well informed on this—need to remember that commitment that they signed on during the 2004 election campaign. We hope that they will respect that commitment by supporting Motion M-163.

In my platform, I pointed out the vital importance of agriculture to my riding. For example, the Arthabaska RCM is the top-ranking milk and cattle producer in Quebec. We are renowned for the quality of our dairy production and a number of exceptional cheeses are made in our region. I am sure my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will back me up on that, being a connoisseur of goat's milk and other types of cheeses.

In recent months, agricultural producers have been in trouble, not only as far as mad cow is concerned, but also supply management and access to markets. These are all matters of concern to people in the agricultural community, not just in my area, but throughout Quebec and even in the rest of Canada.

Much of what is produced in my region is governed by supply management, milk, chicken and eggs for example. In fact, dairy products account for 50% of the entire agricultural production of central Quebec, so supply management is vital to these farmers.

So that hon. members will have a proper understanding of what this is all about, I will just give a quick overview of supply management. It has three basic components: limiting production through a quota system, regulating prices, and maintaining the balance between supply and demand by keeping the borders closed through the imposition of high import duties on poultry, eggs and dairy products.

I should make it clear that it is essential that the three elements co-exist; if one falls, the whole system crumbles. This is what we have been fearing for some time. In 2003, we nearly ran into difficulty at Cancun. We did have problems, but fortunately the supply management system survived. It is, however, still in a precarious position.

The benefits of the supply management system are twofold in that it provides a decent income to our producers, while not creating distortions on world markets. As I said a moment ago, the federal Liberals have been claiming for years to support supply management. However, whenever that system was challenged, the government continued to undermine it.

Earlier, my eminent colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, referred to butter oil. Therefore, I will not elaborate, but I will say that this is just one example. There is also the example of cheese sticks, regarding which the member for Joliette also made representations, at the time, to the former Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This was an endless saga, as is the case whenever the government yields to lobbies that leave Quebec dairy producers to fend for themselves, as was the case then.

As regards butter oil, I want to point out that the federal government decided that this type of oil was not a dairy product, thus opening the border to imports. Over a five year period, between 1997 and 2002, these imports increased by 557%. This is no joke. It represents a loss of half a billion dollars for Quebec dairy producers.

I read the papers this morning, as every member of Parliament should, and I saw that this issue is still being reported today, April 15, 2005, in the daily La Presse :

—Quebec dairy producers...want to slow down the massive entry into Canada of dairy ingredients that come primarily from European countries.

These milk substitutes are increasingly replacing milk and cream in the manufacture, among other products, of cheese and ice cream. According to the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Marcel Groleau, this substitution results in an annual loss of $70 million for Quebec milk producers.

The federation received the support of Quebec's agriculture minister, Yvon Vallières, who is also the MLA for Richmond, in my riding. He recognized that import controls on butter oil blends can be easily bypassed by importing a product containing 40% butter oil and 51% sugar. Here is what Minister Vallières said on this subject, and I quote:

This product is imported duty free into Canada, but if the dairy content was 1% higher, a 212% duty would apply.

We defend supply management in Quebec, but we expect the federal government to do the same, which, unfortunately, is not the case. This is the reason why we are debating Motion M-163 in the House today. We hope that, when it is time to vote, members will understand why we brought forward this motion.

All this information regarding the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec found its way into the paper today because that organization held its annual general meeting yesterday and the day before. You can be sure that supply management was discussed at that meeting.

In conclusion, producers have asked the Canadian government to use the rules provided in trade agreements to restrict imports of these ingredients into the country. They have done so by invoking section 28 in particular of the WTO agreement that deals with this. In invoking this section, Canada could establish new tariff quotas that would make it possible to maintain these imports at the current level and to increase them by a maximum of 10%. In the press release of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, its president, Mr. Marcel Groleau, says:

We are asking the Canadian government to use the right that the WTO has granted it and to immediately invoke section 28 to limit the damage. As a champion of supply management, it must do so without delay. This is urgent!

It is not I who is saying this, it is the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec himself who says so, and I think that he knows quite a lot about the issue.

He concluded by saying, “It must put an end to the erosion before irreparable damage is done”.

I think we just heard someone who, having worked for so long in this sector, knows what he is talking about. We would like the government to pay urgent heed to this call.

I also dug out a very interesting study on the matter. It found that the dairy supply management system in Canada is a good model that needs to be maintained. While the World Trade Organization agriculture negotiations are threatening the foundation of this system, the study shows that the system benefits farmers just as much as consumers and the government. The study was conducted by Daniel Mercier-Gouin, director of Groupe de recherche en économie et politique agricole, GREPA, and professor of agri-food economics and consumer sciences at Laval.

In his study, Mr. Gouin makes four observations. I will list them. First, he observes that the prices paid to Canadian farmers for milk are stable and higher than the prices paid in the other countries in the study. Second, he observes that the favourable and stable prices paid to Canadian dairy farmers do not necessarily mean an increase in the price of milk for the consumer. On the contrary, the three countries with supply management, Canada, France and the Netherlands, saw the lowest increases in consumer prices between 1981 and 2002, the period under review.

Third, the researcher points out that the countries heading toward deregulation of their dairy economy—New Zealand and Australia—are those where consumer prices have increased the most. They are also seeing an increase in the aggregate margin of dairy processing and distribution.

Fourth, in conclusion he shows that the incomes of Canadian farmers are better protected and that Canada is one of the countries with the lowest government subsidies.

If other studies are needed, others exist. However, I think this is quite conclusive. I invite all the parties to vote in favour of Motion M-163.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her renewed demonstration that this budget is completely unacceptable for Quebeckers. She has shown once more that the Bloc Québécois is the party that really stands for the interests of Quebec.

One point that got my attention in her remarks concerns correctional officers. She said that the minister proposed to increase to 2.33% the maximum pension accrual rate in registered pension plans. The hon. member explained that very clearly. This is the 2% rate in defined benefit RPPs for public security occupations. This is good news.

Could the hon. member tell us why this proposal is in the budget and the government did not implement it? We cannot figure out what is going on, and correctional officers cannot either. We would like to understand what is going on. Would my colleague care to comment?

[The Environment, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said in committee that he plans to sign bilateral agreements with each province. Does the minister intend to change his approach and can he commit to signing an agreement with Quebec, giving it full authority to implement the plan on its own territory?

[The Environment, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to justify Quebec's treatment in the Kyoto implementation plan, the Minister of the Environment said that there was no target for hydro electricity because it does not produce greenhouse gases. What a thing for a minister from Quebec to say.

Is the Minister of the Environment's reductio ad absurdum reasoning not proof that with his plan, Quebec is a victim of its own success since its past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are being completely ignored?

[Quebec Solo and Small Ensemble Competition, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's fifth annual solo and small ensemble competition will be held in Victoriaville, in my riding, from April 15 to 17. The theme this year is “Hats off to Musicians”.

More than 1,700 musicians between the ages of 7 and 42 will take part in this major event being held under the honorary presidency of Jean-François Harrisson, a popular actor with young viewers.

This competition is being organized by the Fédération des harmonies et des orchestres symphoniques du Québec, which has over 13,000 members.

More than 800 performances will be held in about 10 different venues during this prestigious competition. Over $30,000 in scholarships will be shared by the best musicians and musical ensembles.

The public will be able to attend a number of performances and concerts being held at various locations.

This is a unique opportunity for the public to enjoy our local talents.

[Yvon Paré, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the community of Warwick and the Bois-Francs region was immensely saddened to learn of the passing of Yvon Paré, a man who was very involved in his community.

During nearly 30 years, he worked for the sports service at the CEGEP in Victoriaville. This former football player with a heart of gold was an icon on the local sports scene.

He was committed to the development of young people and wanted as many student athletes as possible to be able to pursue their sports dreams.

Mr. Paré was also active in the union of non teaching professionals at the Victoriaville CEGEP.

Retired for a mere 18 months, he had continued his community involvement with many groups, including the Vulkins and Vicas football teams, the Warwick golf club, the recreation issue table of the Arthabaska RCM and the sports and recreation regional unit for the Centre-du-Québec region, to name but a few.

The Bloc Québécois extends its deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Yvon Paré. Goodbye and thank you, Yvon.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004, March 11th, 2005]

Yes, just by chance, as my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine says.

Since then, a foreign-incorporated holding company owning businesses engaged in international shipping is considered to be involved in shipping itself. It is therefore exempt from Canadian taxes, even if its profits are brought into the country. The provision is retroactive, again just by chance, to 1995, the year in which CSL International moved to Barbados.

The bill affects only a limited number of taxpayers. In fact, the Canadian Shipowners Association has only 11 members including eight active in international shipping, among them CSL International.

In 2000, a group of 13 countries, including Canada, proposed loosening the OECD regulations on tax havens. Since then, the correct term is no longer “tax havens” but “uncooperative tax havens”. This measure reduced to 11 from 35 the number of countries on the list of countries with which the OECD recommends not concluding tax treaties. In 2001, the same group of 13 countries, still including Canada, proposed even more flexibility in the OECD rules. As of that date, a country only needed to agree to share tax information in order to be considered cooperative. In 2002, the black list shrank from 11 to 7, and to 6 in 2003. Barbados is no longer on the OECD black list. It remains, just as my colleague from Joliette has said, a tax haven nonetheless.

In 2002, the government introduced Bill S-2, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act. Far from denouncing the 1980 tax convention between Canada and Barbados, Bill S-2 simply renewed it by amending its schedules.

To illustrate how to avoid paying taxes in Canada, let us take a random example. I will take Canada Steamship Lines, as a random example.

Its subsidiary in Barbados, Canada Steamship Lines International, may be nothing more than an empty shell, as I said earlier, that can declare exorbitant profits. The tax rate in Barbados is ridiculously low, between 1% and 2.5%. On average the tax rate is somewhere around 1.12%. Once these few taxes are paid, the parent company, a Canadian company, can bring these profits back to Canada and be completely exempt from paying taxes in Canada since the tax conventions prohibit double taxation.

As my colleague from Joliette said so well a few moments ago, this is a matter of roughly $103 million that could have gone to public services such as health and education, among other things, for the people of Quebec and Canada. It is just another scandal.

I will conclude by saying that it would be very easy for the government to shut down the Barbados loophole. It would simply have to abolish, by order, section 5907(11.2)( c ) of the Income Tax Regulations. Income brought back to Canada by Canadian companies with subsidiaries in Barbados would be taxable in Canada, at the applicable rate in Canada, less the amount of tax paid in Barbados.

This simple measure would generate at least $350 million in additional income for the federal government. It is a constructive solution. It is up to the government to act.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Joliette on his excellent presentation. I have had the honour of working with him in recent years, in his capacity as the Bloc Québécois critic on finance. I can say that he has probably become—in spite of himself—an expert on tax havens. Still, unlike some other members of this House, he has never used them for tax evasion purposes.

As my colleague states, we are in complete agreement with Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion.

In fact, we are in favour of tax conventions with countries which have taxation systems similar to Canada's and Quebec's. That is the case with the conventions covered by Bill S-17.

But the same income must not be taxed twice, once when it is earned and a second time in the taxpayer's country of residence. That is only natural. Many tax conventions signed by Canada respect this principle.

The problems arise when Canada signs a tax convention with a tax haven. At that time, the tax convention makes it possible to avoid taxation entirely, and that is tax evasion. Believe it or not, Canada has signed such an agreement with Barbados, a recognized tax haven. As my colleague said, it has only 272,000 inhabitants but has become the third most popular destination for Canadian capital, behind the United States and Great Britain. This is no surprise when one sees the tax rates applied in Barbados.

In 1994, financial transfers from Canada to Barbados totalled $5 billion, a hefty sum. Less than 10 years later, in 2002, this amount stood at nearly $24 billion. That is nothing short of a 369% increase. The previous Auditor General, always ready to sniff out something fishy, and his successor both quite rightly denounced the danger tax havens pose to the Canadian tax base. Let us can take a closer look at this.

In 1992, the Auditor General brought the problem of tax havens to public attention for the first time.

A few years later, in 1996, the Auditor General raised the alarm again, stating this time that the results of Revenue Canada's program to combat it indicate that avoidance continues to pose a serious threat to the tax base.

The current Prime Minister, who was the finance minister back in 1996, responded to the report by saying, “the government is proposing to implement those recommendations swiftly and fully”. That was 1996, almost 10 years ago. The Liberal government has not acted on anything in that Auditor General's report.

In 1998, the Auditor General expressed concern for the third time about the growing use of tax havens and increasing number of bilateral income tax conventions. His report reads, and I quote:

—failure to take urgent action on these matters will severely limit Revenue Canada's ability to manage the risks to Canada's tax base that international transactions represent.

In 2001, the Auditor General raised for the fourth time the issue of tax havens. In his report of February 2001, he wrote, and I quote:

One of the biggest threats to the tax base lies in the international activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the use of tax havens.

Finally, the issue of tax havens was raised, for the fifth time, by the current Auditor General, who wrote in her December 2002 report:

Although Canada amended its rules in 1995, little has changed. Tax havens continue to attract Canadian money. For example, Statistics Canada reports that Canadian direct investment in Barbados has increased from $628 million in 1988 to $23.3 billion in 2001—over a 3,600 percent increase... Information provided to us by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency shows that in 2000, Canadian corporations received $1.5 billion in dividends from corporations in Barbados.

Another very instructive chronology demonstrates Canada's lack of action and this government's lack of ethics. Let us go back 1992 this time.

My colleague referred to Canada Steamship Lines, which then created CSL International. This is an empty shell that was incorporated in Liberia to take charge, on paper, of all CSL's international operations. CSL International does very little shipping. It is a holding company that owns businesses that do engage in shipping. At the time, it was possible to bring into Canada, tax-free, the profits generated by the Liberian subsidiary of a Canadian company.

In 1994, the current Prime Minister and then finance minister tabled his first budget. The date was February 22, 1994. At the time, he said he wanted to put an end to the use of tax havens, because some Canadian corporations were not paying enough taxes. Therefore, at the time, he wanted to take measures to prevent Canadian based corporations from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

However, the budget implementation bill and the regulations that came into effect in 1995 left one loophole available: Barbados. So, in January 1995, CSL International moved to Barbados. On February 1, 2003, Pierre Préfontaine, the first vice-president of CSL International, confirmed to the CBC that the move had been motivated by the changes made to Canada's taxation rules.

In 1996, far from seeking means to stem the exodus of capital to Barbados by denouncing the convention with that tax haven, Canada encouraged the situation by signing a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Barbados on May 29, 1996. In 1996, while he was finance minister, the present Prime Minister introduced Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill proposing more flexible tax treatment for, oddly enough, international shipping companies. That bill died on the order paper when the election was called.

In 1998, the then finance minister and now PM, not having given up, introduced budget implementation Bill C-28, one of the clauses of which addressed shipping.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a promise made is not always a promise kept.

Knowing that aboriginal women are victims of violence more often than other women in our society, what is the government waiting for to keep its promise at last and hand over the money?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Quebec Native Women's Association are calling for the establishment of a $5 million education and research fund in order to document the number and circumstances surrounding the disappearance and violent deaths of native women.

Is the minister going to respond to the request by the Sisters in Spirit campaign and spend $5 million to fight violence against aboriginal women?