Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1646
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I just wanted to say that we introduced an opposition day motion in February seeking the exact measures proposed here. So we're very glad that the government has finally listened to reason and taken the necessary steps to help small businesses.
We are pleased with the direction the government has taken and proud of our efforts to get to this point.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We support the principle behind TFSAs. We've made that clear numerous times in the past.
But raising the limit to nearly double is a problem because it does not adequately address a number of issues. Mr. Brison just described one of them. Mr. Jovanovic, you've read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the matter.
Something else in the report was also raised in other studies. The purpose of a TFSA is to encourage people to save, a bit like an RRSP. But the TFSA isn't really leading to any new savings. Small investors are using the vehicle a bit like they would an RRSP. But, by and large, those who are maxing out their contributions aren't putting away additional savings. They are merely moving their savings. The TFSA actually provides a more favourable tax environment in terms of protecting savings in the future and ensuring growth.
Have you considered the points raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, among others, and looked at how the TFSA has affected people's saving habits? Similarly, have you considered the impact of raising the limit from $5,500 to $10,000?
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
The benefits you just listed are the very reasons why we don't oppose the principle behind TFSAs. You talked about optimal conditions, but the issue is where should the limit be to ensure that optimal performance.
At what point does the TFSA stop being an instrument that allows for maximum benefit and the optimal use of resources? At what point does it become an appealing tax shelter vehicle? And when I say tax shelter, I'm not referring to savings but, rather, the transfer of savings. That's what we are concerned about.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are coming to the oft-discussed matter of income splitting, which the Conservatives have renamed the family tax cut credit, as a marketing ploy.
The measure has been widely documented as a tax benefit that will help very few people, just 15% of Canadian households. The other 85% will get nothing out of it. Of the multitude of measures the government is introducing, it's obviously important to distinguish between income splitting and the enhanced universal child care benefit.
They are two separate benefits and the government should have treated them as such. For its own vote-getting reasons, in my opinion, the government opted to group them together and to try to convince Canadians that we were against the whole set of measures, which is not at all the case.
I'm not quite sure what else we can possibly ask you about income splitting, as this division has probably been the most studied. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that we will stick to our previously held position and vote against this measure.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
As I mentioned previously, we are strongly opposed to income splitting for all of the economic reasons that have been mentioned. However, we support enhancing the universal child care benefit, even though the government regrettably chose not to be transparent about the fact that it eliminated the child tax credit to fund the bulk of the improved benefit.
We will, of course, support the enhanced universal child care benefit, even though it should be renamed given that it's for children between the ages of 6 and 17. It can hardly continue to be called a universal child care benefit when it's for children older than 6. The measure would be combined with the NDP's proposed $15-a-day national child-care program. The plan would be negotiated with the provinces, with Quebec having the right to opt out given that it already has a program in place.
For these reasons, we intend to support the enhanced universal child care benefit, provided for in clauses 35 to 40.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I will be brief, Mr. Chair.
We understand why the Green Party has proposed this amendment. However, we believe that there is an immediate and pressing need to be able to amend and repair the review process so as to ensure that projects, such as natural gas projects, will be studied thoroughly and considered on their merit.
This is not a matter of the duration of licenses, but of whether an export license should in fact be granted to a project. A more thorough process in the future would help resolve this issue.
We will vote in favour of the amendment.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I would like to discuss all the clauses, up to clause 152, including the two previous ones we have already voted on.
The argument is the same one we used when the government introduced its motion in the House, but what is happening with the security services is clearly unacceptable to us. We were not opposed to a consolidation of services, especially considering what happened on October 22. However, there are obviously some privileges associated with this House and the Senate. It was provided that the authority of the House of Commons and Senate security guards would always be subject to the authority of Parliament and its two Houses. Since the RCMP now reports directly to the government and no longer directly to Parliament, we feel that this is a significant departure from what used to be the responsibility of those of two Parliamentary services.
Therefore, we cannot accept this proposal. It would have been completely acceptable for the three bodies, including the RCMP, to work together, but under the authority of the House and the Senate.
This is not a superficial provision. It really changes the essence of what used to be separate bodies and responsibilities. Responsibilities are not trivial things. They stem from the essence and the role of Parliament, and from its role in terms of protection. Let's remember that the Parliament security officer bodies—of the Senate and the House of Commons—were created at the same time as the RCMP. However, their roles have been kept separate for constitutional reasons and because of Parliamentary privilege. That is why we cannot support the government's proposal.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
May I ask a question to clarify the amendment?
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I am trying to understand why “at any one time” was included.
In English what does “at any one time” mean legally, and why was this added? I'm just curious.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I wanted to know why the amendment includes “at any one time”.
Why was “at any one time” added? What does it mean exactly in your sense?
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1646 | Page: 1 of 110

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data