Bernard Bigras

[Wind Energy, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister's response, but we are far from the $7,000 per capita that went to Newfoundland for the Hibernia project.

By investing in the wind energy sector, does the government realize that it would be making progress toward attaining the objectives of Kyoto, by contributing to developing clean and renewable energy, as well as making a significant contribution to the Gaspé and the Murdochville region?

[Wind Energy, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the David Suzuki Foundation claims that application of the Kyoto protocol has considerable advantages for the Canadian economy. The development of wind technology is one of these.

Does the federal government not realize that, if it devoted to the development of wind energy an effort similar to that it has devoted to developing the Hibernia oil project, the Murdochville area and Quebec would become world leaders in the production of the latest wind energy equipment?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for practically turning the floor over to me in this debate. It is with great pleasure that I speak to, among other topics, the amendment put forward by the member for Drummond concerning Bill C-47, which reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-47, An Act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

The reason I am speaking to the bill today is that, in my opinion, it is seriously detrimental to businesses in Quebec, which have always done very well economically and which offer Quebecers a product which meets their expectations and which, to a certain degree, deserves the full attention of this government, with a view to providing the necessary tax incentives to enable Canada's and Quebec's microbreweries to continue to market their products.

Generally speaking, Bill C-47 amends and, of course, introduces a number of technical improvements to the Excise Act. Here is a sampling:

the continued imposition of a production levy on spirits, tobacco products and raw leaf tobacco and the replacement of the existing excise levy on sales of wine with a production levy at an equivalent rate;

the replacement of the excise duty and excise tax on tobacco products other than cigars with a single excise duty;

more comprehensive licensing requirements and new registration requirements for persons carrying on activities in relation to goods subject to duty;

explicit recognition of limited exemptions for certain goods produced by individuals for their personal use;

tight new controls on the possession and distribution of goods on which duty has not been paid;

updated administrative provisions, including new remittance, assessment and appeal provisions that are similar to those under the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax legislation;

updated enforcement provisions, including new offence, penalty and collection provisions;

Basically, we find it regrettable that the bill contains no provisions to reduce the excise tax on beer and microbreweries. We thought that the bill should naturally include beer and reflect the situation in which the microbrewers of Quebec and Canada find themselves.

I would remind the House that a number of Quebec and Canadian microbreweries are in dire straits. I would also remind the House that several of them have gone bankrupt and have had to close down because in Canada there is a preferential tax rate, clearly enshrined in the legislation, favouring the big breweries. Finally, I will remind the House that 38 out of the 86 microbreweries in Canada have had to close down. These small businesses do not represent a significant part of the Canadian beer market--only 4% to 5%--while the big breweries account for 90% of the market.

It is a growing industry. These dynamic small businesses are offering a product that meets consumers' expectations. It also meets the expectations of people in the regions.

Such a small sector as that of the microbreweries, which accounts for only 4% of the market and is steadily growing, should not be faced with tax measures or a tax system that puts them at disadvantage compared to the big breweries, which already have a huge share of the market.

I say it quite frankly because when we look at the situation in the United States, we realize that the American tax system is quite different from to the one we have here in Canada. For instance, 28 cents a litre is levied on Canadian products while only 9 ¢ a litre is levied on microbrewery products in the United States. Thus, in the United States, the government is collecting 9 cents a litre for beer produced by a microbrewery as compared to 28 cents a litre in Canada on beer produced here.

There is also the whole issue of the definition of microbreweries. In the United States, a microbrewery is a brewery producing less than 1 million hectolitres per year. In Canada, a microbrewery is defined as a brewery producing 300,000 hectolitres of beer. Therefore, in the United States a brewery producing less than 1 million hectolitres is by definition a microbrewery and, as such, is entitled to a more preferential tax rate, 9 cents, whereas in Canada, the threshold and the definition are, to a certain extent, a disadvantage for microbreweries.

Let me give the House a very real example: for every 24 bottle case of microbrewery beer produced in Canada, the federal government gets $4.09 when this beer is sold at a grocery store and $6.12 when it is sold in a bar. In the U.S., the tax on 24 bottles of microbrewery beer produced in the States is $1.12.

What does this all mean? It gives a clear competitive and tax advantage to microbrewery beer produced in the U.S. and sold in Canada, which, in turn, has led to the demise these last few years of a number of microbreweries; 38 out of 86 microbreweries had to close their doors, including seven in British Columbia. That expertise was developed not only in Quebec, but also in British Columbia. Thirteen microbreweries went out of business in Ontario, 11 in Quebec. In regions like Saint-Hyacinthe, Amos, Saint-Eustache, Baie-Saint-Paul, Montreal and Cap-Chat, small local businesses had to close down. Microbrewers themselves blame the tax system for placing them at a severe competitive disadvantage compared to the major brewers.

If the government opposite wants to make regional development one of its priorities, it should realize that its current tax policies have hurt smaller businesses that only have a 4% share of the market. Since the government keeps picking on small businesses, it is not surprising that jobs are being lost and that some of the businesses that had become a symbol for a whole region are no longer able to provide Quebecers and Canadians with top quality beer and even cottage brewery beer.

[Workplace Accidents and Occupational Illness, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, April 28 is designated as a day of compassion in memory of workers who have been injured, killed or disabled as a result of a workplace accident, or are suffering from an occupational illness.

In Canada, in 1998 alone, approximately 800 persons died as a result of a workplace accident or an occupational illness, and almost 900,000 suffered injuries.

Beyond the direct and indirect costs, estimated to be around $10 billion annually, each life that is lost and every injury that is sustained represents a story of human suffering for the victims and those who are close to them.

We must work, individually and collectively, to fight the causes of this problem, and its effects. As elected officials, we must move beyond awareness and translate our awareness into improved legislation for workers.

The Bloc Quebecois will continue to make this issue a priority.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I think that throughout today's debate, we have demonstrated intellectual rigour and not intellectual dishonesty, as the member demonstrated today in the House.

This was nothing but low demagoguery. I urge him to tell the GM workers what he has told us today. We will see who is really responsible today for the closing of the GM plant.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is referring to the real imbalance that currently exists. We could talk about many activity sectors, but in the case of the auto industry, we know that in Ontario it has developed at the expense of Quebec.

In 1965, when the auto pact was signed between Canada and the United States, the Canadian politicians made a commitment to expanding the auto industry in Quebec. We have no choice but to conclude that this is not what happened. Between 1964 and 2001, the share of the auto industry in Quebec has increased from 3 to 5%. This is a complete failure.

The proof, and my colleague has talked about it, is that 25% of all automobiles are sold in Quebec while Quebec only accounts for 3% of the jobs in assembly and 5% of the jobs in manufacturing.

This is far from being an equalization mechanism. Quebec is not getting its fair share in the projects and in structuring jobs, as the recovery of the GM plant could be, by building new models of vehicles.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part today in this debate on an opposition motion, more specifically a Bloc Quebecois motion, on the vehicle assembly sector of the auto industry in Quebec, and more particularly on the inability of the federal government to defend the workers at the GM plant.

I will repeat, for those who are watching us and for all parliamentarians, what the motion says. It reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its inability to defend the workers at the General Motors plant in Boisbriand and thus allowing the vehicle assembly sector of the Quebec auto industry to disappear.

For Quebec, the GM plant is an important symbol of the lack of investment in the Quebec auto industry by the federal government in the past. It is also a telling example of its inability to support workers in a key industry.

In the next few minutes, I will try to show how the federal government, through its inaction, its lack of support and its unwillingness to help GM and its workers, has abandoned what was left of the auto industry in Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois wholeheartedly supports the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec and its affiliate, the Canadian Auto Workers, the CAW, in their struggle to save the GM plant in Boisbriand.

Of course, we are very pleased to support the workers because at issue is not only significant job losses that will affect them, but also the economy in the whole area and in the surrounding towns, which will also suffer as a result.

Obviously, the closing of the GM plant will have an impact on the workers. However, it will also have an impact in terms of significant job losses in all of the surrounding communities, whether it be Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and many others. So, our support goes out first to the FTQ, but equally to everyone who has benefited from GM's operations over the years.

There is a major risk that the Boisbriand assembly plant will be closed. This will cause 1,400 direct job losses and some 9,000 indirect job losses among subcontractors, including GM suppliers in Beauce, the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships and southwest Montreal, which may be shut down. Not only will the area in which GM is located be affected, but also regions like the Outaouais and Beauce.

I want to deal specifically with southwest Montreal. At a time when workers may lose their jobs at Alsthom in the east end of Montreal, in the riding of Verdun, we are once again putting a subregion, an part of Montreal, in an equally uncertain situation, because of the closing of the GM plant. Consequently, we must look at the effects throughout the region of Laurentides-Lanaudière, but also look at the impact on the other regions of Quebec.

I remind the House that the plant in Boisbriand built 75,000 vehicles in 2000, or 7.75% of all vehicles built in Canada. The plant was even cited as an example of excellence for all the other GM plants.

So the closing of the GM plant has nothing to do with poor performance and productivity on the part of its workers and the plant itself, but has to do with choices made by the federal government and its direct inaction, with the lack of determination and seriousness on the part of the then secretary of state for the economic development of Quebec. It also has to do with the failure to appoint, as my colleagues indicated earlier, lobbyists to find a sustainable solution to the problem now facing the workers.

Must we remind the House that Canada has always greatly benefited from investment in the auto industry. However, not a single dollar was announced for Quebec during the first six months of 2001. During the previous two quarters, Ontario was second only to the United States in terms of investment per country. Various investments of several hundreds millions of dollars were announced, particularly by General Motors in Oshawa, by Chrysler in Windsor, and by Toyota in Cambridge.

Thus, there were major investments in the rest of Canada, particularly in Ontario. But very recently, very few investments were made in Quebec. While GM is the last symbol of the auto industry in Quebec, we think it is time that a for the federal government to take action, not only to support these workers, but also to support the area's economy and to stimulate it.

The closing of this plant will have an impact not only on the Laurentides-Lanaudière region, but also on other regions in Quebec, as I said earlier.

The GM plant in Boisbriand will close in September 2002. The immediate impact of this closing will be tremendous. Fourteen hundred highly paid jobs will be lost in Boisbriand, Blainville, Sainte-Thérèse and Saint-Eustache, where most of GM's workers live. Moreover, this closing could mean the loss of 4,700 more jobs in the auto parts sector.

The estimates of jobs created by the spending of auto workers fluctuate, but a conservative analysis indicates that 9,000 indirect jobs depend on the plant. The closing of the plant in Boisbriand would entail the loss of at least 10,000 jobs in Quebec. That would crush the efforts made by Quebec to create jobs these last few years. As I have already said, Quebec would lose its only car assembly plant.

I wish to remind the House that the arrival of GM in Boisbriand had led us to hope--and I say hope because, at present, the results are not conclusive--that Quebec would at long last have its fair share of America's fetish industry. In the Basses-Laurentides region, no other job offered the same good terms for someone who had only a grade 12 education, and that was frequent at the time.

Also, the FTQ unanimously adopted a motion in November 2001. It was a resolution supporting the 1,400 GM workers. This resolution could very well be taken up by the House. It asks:

That the governments of Quebec and Canada again be asked to convince GM Canada to make a major investment in Boisbriand, so that Quebec can keep its fair share of the auto industry.

As the Chair is indicaating that my ten minutes are almost up, I will conclude my remarks. Between 1964 and 2001, in Quebec, the auto industry's share increased from 3 to 5%. More than ever, we believe that efforts must be made by the federal government to ensure that we will keep this last symbol of Quebec's auto industry.

[Kyoto Protocol, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between Quebec and the federal government is that Quebec is aware of the problem and is asking that Kyoto be ratified. The federal government is clueless and takes its orders from the head office in Washington.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that any delay in ratifying Kyoto is tantamount to making future generations pay for our lack of courage, and that it will cost a great deal more if we do not face up to our responsibilities now?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, various lobbies are pushing the issue of the supposedly astronomical costs of the Kyoto protocol in order to delay ratification. The David Suzuki Foundation, however, maintains that meeting the Kyoto objectives would have important economic benefits for Canada, and it has the figures to prove it.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that any delay in ratifying the Kyoto protocol would not only have economic costs, but also social ones, especially in connection with health and climate, and that it would also send a terrible message to future generations?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is trying to evade its international obligations with a new toy, the clean energy export credits.

This idea is so ridiculous that it was flatly rejected by the European Union and by the United States. Yet the Minister of the Environment is defending it.

Does this mean that the minister shares the opinion of the Minister of Finance that Kyoto is not the solution to the problems caused by climate change?