House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.
Textile Industry April 14th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the clothing and textile industries are in crisis in large part because of the lifting of quotas on clothing from China. Industry stakeholders, the unions in particular, are calling on the Canadian government to implement protective measures, as the United States is about to do to protect its textile industry.
Can the Minister of International Trade explain the government's stubborn refusal to take measures to protect the industry even though the WTO rules allow it to do so?
International Trade April 6th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, on the same issue, a number of groups, including Amnesty International, are asking that the name of the manufacturing plant, and not just that of the country of origin, be indicated on the label, so that consumers can make an educated choice by knowing what is going on in terms of human rights.
Does the government intend to follow up on this request, which would help improve working conditions here and abroad?
International Trade April 6th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade is negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea and is contemplating similar agreements with India and various Central American countries.
Does the minister not think it is time to ensure that, when such treaties are signed, contracting states pledge to comply with certain obligations, so that the products that we import are not the product of child labour, forced labour, or plants that do not respect human rights?
Softwood Lumber March 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the industry is justifiably concerned that the government might be attempting to buy peace with the Americans and be prepared to settle for a bargain deal.
As Canada is on the verge of winning across the board before the trade panels, could the Minister of International Trade clearly set out the bottom line conditions that have to be met for Canada to enter into an agreement with the Americans?
Softwood Lumber March 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the softwood lumber dispute, the Americans have collected $4 billion in countervailing duties from the lumber industry. The courts have ruled that these duties violated WTO and NAFTA provisions.
Does the Prime Minister, who is currently in Texas, intend to bring to the fore, in his discussions with President Bush, the return with interest of the $4 billion which was unfairly exacted from the softwood lumber industry in Canada and Quebec and which the American industry wants to keep for itself?
Petitions March 22nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by no fewer than 13,000 people, calling on the government to amend the regulations of the Textile Labelling Act and require companies to disclose the name and address of every manufacturing facility where clothing sold in Canada was made.
This initiative carried out by young francophone members of Amnesty International is designed to raise public awareness of the plight of individuals who are the victims of worker exploitation and give people the chance to make a choice in support of human rights.
It is therefore with great honour that I table this petition.
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004 March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska. The purpose of the bill before us is to implement tax conventions with a number of countries.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. That having been said, we support tax treaties that are concluded with countries whose tax system is comparable to ours, without being necessarily similar. As we know, societies' visions are not necessarily the same. Take the example of our American neighbours. They are not very strong on taxing, but then they are not very strong on public services either. This means that a whole segment of the American population does not have access to health care and to a number of other services which we, in Quebec and in Canada, view as services that should be provided to the public.
Other countries tax a great deal more than Canada. In fact, overall, Canada ranks in the middle of the pack, currently, in terms of taxation in OECD countries. Consequently, half of these countries have higher taxes than we do, probably because they provide more public services and greater social protection than we do. Half of them have lower taxes, probably because they have decided to provide fewer services to their citizens.
I talked about “comparable taxation” because unfortunately I heard some Liberal members trying to imply that the Bloc Québécois was demanding that all countries, including developing countries, adopt the same taxation rate as ours. This is simply not true.
However, we agree with the principle of having tax treaties to avoid double taxation. As I mentioned, we want to avoid the double taxation of Canadian citizens, be they corporate citizens or individuals, because if they pay taxes in another jurisdiction, it is quite normal for Canada, in calculating their taxes, to take that into consideration. In this respect, there is no problem. I think that most of the countries identified in Bill S-17 comply with this approach.
This means, when countries have insignificant, unreasonable or negligible taxation—I am thinking for example of Barbados, but also of tax havens in general—a tax treaty makes no sense because our goal is to avoid double taxation. If there is no taxation in the other jurisdiction, earnings, be they profits or dividends or even income not subject to tax in that jurisdiction, must be subject to full taxation in Canada.
For this reason, the Bloc Québécois is taking advantage of this debate on Bill S-17 to reiterate our opposition to the tax treaty signed with Barbados. As the House is aware, this is the only place in the world considered a tax haven with which Canada has signed a tax treaty. Canada has not signed such a treaty with Liberia, Bermuda or any place else.
Barbados is a tax haven in that it meets all the criteria set out in the OECD definition of a tax haven. I will read the House an excerpt from the 1998 report:
These territories and countries offer the foreign investor an environment with no or only nominal taxation, which is usually coupled with a reduction in regulatory or administrative constraints. The activity is usually not subject to information exchange because, for example, of strict bank secrecy provisions. [...] these jurisdictions are generally known as tax havens.
The Barbados fits the OECD definition perfectly. I know what the government will say, that the Barbados was not on the most recent OECD list of tax havens. In 1998, it was on the list. The Barbados had been identified as a tax haven by the OECD.
In 2001, in the subsequent report, the Barbados was dropped for essentially two reasons. The OECD found that this tax haven was cooperating with international financial authorities in terms of bank secrecy. Since then, nothing has really been done to make the banking and taxation system in the Barbados more transparent.
The second reason is that Canada and the United States have pressured the OECD to drop the Barbados from the list of tax havens. Nonetheless, when we refer to the 1998 definition, we cannot deny that the Barbados is a tax haven.
I will come back to this, but I want to touch on the fact that even the Auditor General—and it was a male Auditor General at the time—in his February 27, 2001, report identified tax havens as a very serious problem for the Canadian tax base, 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.
That was in the 2001 report. Nothing has been done since, so that for foreign investments by Canadians in other countries Barbados has become the third ranking destination for Canadian investors. It is rather amazing that a small island with a population of 270,000 could attract $23.340 billion in Canadian investments in 2001, for example. That certainly creates a lot of investment amount per capita.
Over the years, Barbados have become Canada's tax haven. This makes it easier to understand why the Canadian government pressured the OECD to get it taken off the list of tax havens.
As I was saying, it is absolutely amazing that $23 billion in investments could go to a tiny island with a population of 270,000, but it is even more amazing that Barbados has become, as I also said, the third-ranking destination for Canadian investment dollars, after the U.S. of course, and Great Britain.
So there is more Canadian investment in Barbados than in Mexico, for example, where the figure is $4 billion; Japan: $6.4 billion, or France, $3.3390 billion. It does not take a genius to figure it out. It is simply that the tax convention with Barbados has encouraged individuals and corporations to make use of the mechanism made available to them in order to avoid their collective responsibility, that is to pay taxes in Canada.
For instance, Canada's five largest banks alone admitted in 2002 to having saved $10 billion over the years in Canadian taxes through tax havens such as Barbados in particular.
This is a well known fact. The Bloc Québécois, through the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and myself when I was the finance critic, has been raising the issue since 1994. We have put forward motions in the House. These motions were supported by all opposition parties. Only the Liberals have objected to tightening the rules, especially in the case of Barbados, to prevent tax avoidance and close up these loopholes.
Why? Because the government is hiding behind appearances and denying the facts. We will hear that the tax rate in Barbados is approximately 40%. That is window dressing. International business corporations actually pay between 1.5% and 2.5% in tax. Not only did the Canadian government arrange its tax law to allow for this but it also made special arrangements to ensure that Canadian businesses would not be subject to Canadian taxation.
We are confronted with this totally objectionable situation where the current Prime Minister was the owner of a company—now owned by his sons, as hon. members know—which took advantage of this tax loophole. We believe that, over the past five years, this loophole has saved CSL International approximately $103 million in taxes, at the expense of all middle-class taxpayers and the social protections that could have been put in place both federally and provincially. That is totally unacceptable.
Softwood Lumber March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, there has been very little in it for the industry. The funding in question has gone to the communities, not to the companies affected by the crisis.
Why does the minister not ask the industry to choose between a true aid package that would enable it to hold on until the legal proceedings are over, and a cut-rate negotiated settlement such as he is proposing?
Softwood Lumber March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, by refusing to implement a proper aid package to help the softwood lumber industry make it through to the end of the legal process, the government has helped make its financial situation even more precarious, so much so that a number of Quebec lumber companies are in very bad shape at present.
Instead of exhausting the Quebec industry by its inaction, will the government acknowledge that it ought to have put an aid package in place a long time ago, one that would include support for the legal proceedings, loan guarantees and measures for older workers to help the industry get through this crisis?
Tobacco Farmers March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, tobacco farmers are in a catch-22 situation. The major tobacco companies are no longer buying Quebec tobacco, so the growers are forced to change crops.
These farmers need immediate assistance from the federal government. However, allocation of the aid package announced prior to the election, in the order of $70 million, is blocked because the stakeholders in Ontario cannot reach agreement. Nine months later, not one cent has been paid out. This is totally unacceptable. The financial crunch is likely to lead to farm land being abandoned.
The Office du tabac jaune du Québec has already made its expectations public and the Government of Quebec has already indicated what its assistance mechanisms will be. Our tobacco farmers are being held hostage by the problem in Ontario, and what is more the reality in Ontario is totally different from that of Quebec.
The federal government must respond to the needs of the Quebec tobacco growers now, without waiting for the Ontario problem to be solved. The situation is urgent. Tobacco farmers in Quebec need help immediately to convert to some other crop starting this spring.