Pierre Paquette

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only did Bill C-28 give a direct advantage to the Prime Minister's company, but the tax convention with Barbados, which he chose to uphold while he was finance minister, was also beneficial to CSL International.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to admit that the tax convention enabled the Prime Minister to bring back to Canada capital on which he paid just over 1% in taxes in Barbados instead of the Canadian rate, which is 37%? That is a $100 million profit in the Prime Minister's pockets.

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated yesterday, and I quote, “there is no link between CSL moving to Barbados, the legislation and the tax conventions signed by Canada”.

How can the finance minister make such a ridiculous statement to try and save the Prime Minister's skin, when the first vice president of CSL, Pierre Préfontaine, declared on February 1, 2003, that CSL International had moved from Liberia to Barbados precisely because of changes in Canadian tax rules?

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only was this legislation tailored so as to allow companies, such as his CSL International, to save millions of dollars in taxes, but furthermore, it is retroactive to 1995.

Does the Prime Minister know many taxpayers able to benefit from tax legislation that is retroactive, as Bill C-28 was for companies such as his?

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the law in question applied to only eight companies, including the Prime Minister's. That law allowed him to avoid at least $100 million in taxes. On February 10, 1998, a director general at Finance suggested that, with a few structural changes, CSL could indeed take advantage of the new provisions in Bill C-28.

How can the Prime Minister maintain he was not in conflict of interest, while sponsoring legislation which, even according to an employee of what was his department at the time, would benefit him and a company like his?

[Petitions, November 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition in support of rural route mail couriers. This petition was signed by citizens of Lanaudière.

Rural route mail couriers are calling on Parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prevents them from bargaining collectively to improve their working conditions.

I want to congratulate the postal workers union on having successfully forced Canada Post to include the organizing of rural route mail couriers in the settlement of the collective agreement.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, based on his statement this morning, is the Minister of Finance not asking the provincial governments to provide deficit insurance, since it is delaying a payment that should be made immediately, given that the provinces are spending money right now on health?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for four years, Canada's finance ministers have been off by 323% in 1999-2000, 353% in 2000-01, 493% in 2001-02 and 133% in 2002-03.

With such scores, is it not despicable of the Minister of Finance to announce that, based on his estimates, he is putting off paying the $2 billion for health until next year, when he knows full well that several credible estimates show a surplus between $6 billion and $9 billion dollars?

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2003]

True, we are one big family in Lanaudière. In fact, all the members from our area are sovereignists. I think the hon. member for Repentigny shares my concerns.

As taxpayers, we want the same services as the rest of Canadians and Quebecers.

If the federal government is no longer able to provide RCMP services to the Lanaudière area or even to the whole of Quebec, then they should transfer the money to us. I am sure the Quebec Police would do what is needed to take over from the RCMP.

However, as long as we keep paying taxes and as long as the RCMP has duties to carry out in our area, the RCMP detachment in Joliette should remain open for the good of the people of Lanaudière, under the provisions of Bill C-32.

To conclude, I do not see what good increasing the sentences set out in the Criminal Code would do if the police does not have the manpower to enforce the code.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for her question. It takes us back into the debate on Bill C-32, which the Bloc Quebecois supports.

In closing, I said there was something somewhat contradictory about the fact that a number of penalties have been increased, which we support, especially those targeting organized crime, while RCMP detachments are being pulled out of several regions in Quebec—and I imagine the same must be true across Canada.

In the Lanaudière area, we have a detachment based in Joliette. I explained that it was supposed to be staffed by 13 officers. Due to the transfer of officers who have not been replaced over the past years, there are now only four officers left to look after the whole area of Lanaudière, which is not enough.

In spite of that, these four RCMP officers are working in close cooperation with the QPF and especially with the municipal police of greater Joliette.

If this detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were to go to Saint-Jérôme and to Trois-Rivières, all of Lanaudière would be unprotected. In this regard, in his speech, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about the situation in his area, where a number of fields were taken over from farmers for the illegal production of marijuana or cannabis.

Unfortunately, we have the same situation in our area. It is a area where tobacco is grown and where there is also a great amount of corn. Unfortunately, these crops facilitate the hiding of this illegal production by the organized crime.

Thus, by neglecting Lanaudière to concentrate RCMP personnel in Saint-Jérôme and Trois-Rivières, the government will totally abandon Lanaudière to the organized crime and the taking over of these fields.

I also explained that, fortunately, citizens have taken action to promote an Info-Crime line, 1-800-711-1800. It allows citizens to anonymously and confidentially report crimes they have witnessed.

Of course, once they have called in, the police must build a case. Thus, if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is no longer in Lanaudière, the work this group of citizens has done and is still doing will be in vain. There will be no use calling this Info-Crime line to report a crime if no one is able to act upon the information.

I remind the House that the RCMP, within the divisions in the different police forces, particularly in Quebec, plays a very important role in search and seizure to gather evidence on organized crime issues.

It is also important to point out another element. The Commission scolaire des Samares, which serves the north of Lanaudière, also has a number of people who work with the commission to ensure that drug traffickers do not use our schools and school yards to recruit consumers and also possible young drug dealers.

These people were hired by the school board and by Thérèse Martin school, Barthélemy Joliette school and even a private school, the Académie Manseau, and are working in cooperation with the Joliette RCMP detachment. If the solicitor general followed up on the RCMP internal management report, and its recommendation to close down nine detachments in Quebec, we will have to do without a detachment in the Lanaudière area. As citizens and as taxpayers, we are entitled to the same services the RCMP is providing to other areas in Quebec and throughout Canada.

The hon. member for Repentigny will agree with me. This issue affects him directly also, even though the detachment is not located in Repentigny, but in Joliette.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood properly, the member for Champlain did not have enough time to present his whole case, if I may put it that way.

He concluded by using the expression insurance policy, which the parliamentary secretary used earlier when he said he was introducing this bill so that we would pass it and it would be our insurance policy.

I would like to know what the member thinks about this argument, since this is the first time that such a bill has been before the House. Never before, in the context of negotiations for the renewal of equalization formulas, has a government had to introduce a bill extending the existing agreements for an additional year because it has not been able to get results.