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 114
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-05 15:03 [p.20265]
Mr. Speaker, aluminium is not just about producers. There are almost 1,400 businesses, mostly SMEs, in the processing sector throughout Quebec that may not be able to absorb a 10% American tariff in the medium term. The government said that it would be there for workers. If that is the case, it needs to act now and not wait until workers have lost their jobs.
What does the government intend to do? What is its plan for aluminium processors?
View Louis Plamondon Profile
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday on NBC, the Prime Minister said that he was ready to show some flexibility on supply management.
With last week's news that he had hired an adviser who is in favour of abolishing supply management, dairy producers are extremely worried. I have two questions for the minister.
What does showing flexibility on supply management mean, exactly?
Can the government confirm that an adviser who is in favour of abolishing supply management was hired?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-05 15:41 [p.20270]
Mr. Speaker, fighting against the spruce budworm, a pest causing major problems for our forestry industry, is a good thing. The problem is that the funding announced in the last budget and in the budget implementation bill, if I am not mistaken, is exclusively for the Maritimes, even though the area affected by this pest in Quebec is bigger than the entire province of New Brunswick.
Why is all the help going to the Maritimes? Could this be a gift for the Irvings?
Where is Quebec in all this and in the budget?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-05 20:15 [p.20307]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for sharing his time with me and giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Groupe parlementaire québécois.
Unfortunatley, Bill C-74 is another mammoth bill that is being debated under another time allocation motion.
The government is blaming the opposition for opposing this bill, claiming that this is what forced it to use time allocation. However, blaming the opposition for doing its job as the opposition is like blaming the Canada Revenue Agency for collecting taxes from people or blaming meteorologists for forecasting rain.
Of course we oppose bad policies. Would the government have me believe that it did not expect us to ask questions and that it did not fully expect us to oppose certain aspects of this bill?
This is ridiculous. Here we are with only 10 minutes to discuss an immense omnibus bill that is 560 pages long.
I will therefore try to be as brief as possible and get right to the point: this budget does not address the needs of Quebeckers; it is as simple as that.
As I said at second reading, there is not much for Quebeckers in this budget, apart from a handful of minor measures that will give the minister a chance to strut all over Canada just before the election. Targeted announcements pay off in swing ridings during elections, as we know. We are seeing that right now in the Chicoutimi by-election. Journalist David Akin said that in his entire career, he had never seen so much money and so many announcements being lavished on a single riding.
They are desperate to win this by-election at any cost. They have some nerve. Our Liberal colleagues are lucky that they do not have to pay for their own gas. Otherwise, they would think twice before taking a limousine hundreds of kilometres to make a $10,000 announcement.
In Bill C-74, we see a $75-million gift to the Irvings to fight the spruce budworm. This is a perfect example. The spruce budworm is also a problem in Quebec. In fact, the infested area in Quebec is bigger than the entire province of New Brunswick, yet Quebec is not getting a single cent. Every penny is going to help the Irvings. That sums this budget up perfectly. This is not a budget for Quebec. It is, first and foremost, a budget for the Liberal Party. It is clear that this old party will never change.
Do not get me wrong, it is not all negative. For example, the Canada workers benefit is interesting. It will help out low-income workers. The small business tax cut from 10.5% to 9% is another good measure.
As hon. members know, Quebec's economy relies heavily on small business owners. Quebec is known for its creativity. With our good ideas we are able to develop businesses that can penetrate markets all around the world. Lowering the small business tax rate will give our businesses the boost they need to create our flagships of tomorrow.
However, the context in which this was announced raised some eyebrows. The Minister of Finance was criticized from all sides for the tax reform he announced last summer. Then out of nowhere he announced the tax cut in order to save face for the government, but at the end of the day it is still a good measure and the tax reform was largely abandoned.
The government kept the proposal to restrict the use of passive income, but it diluted the proposal so much that the reform will not do much. Instead of going after our farmers and small businesses, the government could have gone after the massive problems with its tax reform. I should also mention that there is nothing in the budget to address tax havens.
According to the Conference Board of Canada, we lose at least $9 billion a year in revenue to tax havens.
It is not complicated. If we recovered just a fraction of this amount, we would have some serious breathing room to balance our budget. Bay Street would obviously be angry, which would not fly with the current government, but it would be fair to the people and businesses here that pay their taxes.
The government should be closing loopholes instead of creating more tax havens by signing information sharing agreements with countries that do not have tax return obligations.
Once again, Quebec is demanding that it be able to collect all taxes, but the Prime Minister thumbed his nose at Quebec's unanimous motion, showing his arrogance yet again.
I do not think that any party in power in Quebec would turn its nose up at billions of dollars hidden in tax havens, unlike the Liberals, who are creating more loopholes. The same goes for Netflix, an American multinational corporation.
Quebec and Canadian companies that provide a similar service must charge sales tax, but the government is doing everything it can to exempt Netflix and other U.S. giants from this requirement. That is completely unfair. It is offering a competitive advantage to foreign businesses to the detriment of our own. That must change.
Speaking of handouts to foreign businesses, let us talk about the environment and Trans Mountain. The government just gave a $4.5-billion gift to a U.S. company to develop a pipeline that British Columbia opposes.
The 2015 Liberal platform had this to say about environmental projects:
Canadians must be able to trust that government...will respect the rights of those most affected [by these resource-based projects]...While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.
The government just reversed its position. This budget is more of the same on the environment: a lot of talk and not too many concrete measures. It is simply disappointing.
Quebec is asking for help with the electrification of transportation, but there is nothing for that in the budget. This corner of the House has asked for this funding several times.
Time is running out so I will start to wrap up. This budget is above all for Liberals. It sprinkles around some tax breaks in order to win elections. The government still has not resolved the problem of health transfers that are below the acceptable minimum threshold. While the Liberal Party is playing Monopoly with our money, Quebec is confronted with real problems every year because of a significant increase in health care costs.
I would like the government to start listening instead of always being so arrogant, as we saw with the single tax return and the migrant crisis. On our side, we are going to continue tirelessly defending the interests of our people, Quebeckers.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-05 20:23 [p.20308]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is good to use concrete examples and to apply them in a budgetary context.
I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services for their visit in my riding yesterday to see the community of Manawan. It was an opportunity for us to cut the ribbon on some lovely new housing for the Atikamekw of Manawan First Nation. There was a good financial contribution from the federal government for these housing units. I welcome this good news.
At the same time, my colleagues were able to see all the needs. The crown has committed to providing the same service level to indigenous communities across the country as is provided to other Canadians. We were able to see that it is not the case. There are still huge housing needs. The timing is good since, in previous budgets, important announcements were made regarding indigenous infrastructure. The money has barely been spent if at all. We must therefore make sure that amounts which were announced for infrastructure are indeed allocated, in order to improve indigenous peoples' quality of life in Canada.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-05 20:26 [p.20308]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would like to correct one thing. Quebec does not import oil from Saudi Arabia. Our imports vary each year, but come primarily from the United States as well as England and Norway, as far as I know. We have also imported a great deal of oil from the west since the reversal of Enbridge pipeline 9B. That is the situation.
Like the Conservatives, we condemn the purchase by the federal government with public money of Trans Mountain and the Enbridge line. We believe that it is a bad decision. That is all we agree on, however. We are more supportive of a greener economy and decisions that lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. With respect to the international community, we support the COP21 Paris Agreement. According to our analysis, which is consistent with scientific studies, in order to comply with this agreement we must stop all new development of the oil sands, which, I would remind members, is extremely polluting. Furthermore, new pipelines are used not just to move existing oil at a good price, but also to extract more. This will prevent us from honouring the commitments we made in Paris.
We prefer to develop other energy sources and to start by reducing energy consumption in the 21st century. This works out well because Quebec has everything it needs to develop its renewable energy and is a world leader in the area. Economic development choices, however, are more focused on the oil sands than on the economy of the future. For that reason we rise in the House to defend the environment.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2018-06-04 15:02 [p.20133]
Mr. Speaker, we all know that G7 protests are inevitable, but we hope that they will be peaceful.
We also all know that vandalism could occur, but the government has not made any plans in that regard. The government expects residents and businesses to get their insurance to cover the cost of any damage. Canadians should not have to foot the bill for G7-related property damage. They should not have to pay deductibles or premium increases.
Will the government immediately commit to compensating any victims of G7-related vandalism?
View Simon Marcil Profile
View Simon Marcil Profile
2018-06-04 15:04 [p.20133]
Mr. Speaker, Global Affairs Canada has told farmers not to spread manure during the G7. Once again, Ottawa does not understand the regions.
Here is how it works. Farmers have only until June 15 to finish planting their crops, but they have to spread manure before planting. These farms produce the food that the ministers from the big city will find on their expensive menus at the G7. That is what happens when events take place in rural areas. The scenery is beautiful, but people are hard at work.
Does the government realize that its directive is unrealistic?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-01 12:02 [p.20073]
Mr. Speaker, to make the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion happen, the government is assuming all the risk and paying for everything. If the bill contravenes any provincial laws, Ottawa pays. If Ottawa does not have the jurisdiction required to force this project down Canadians' throats, Ottawa pays. If the project proponent falls behind, Ottawa pays. If the proponent backs out altogether, Ottawa pays again and buys the pipeline. Basically, private enterprise pockets the profits, and the government piggy bank assumes all the risk.
Can the minister tell us how much this venture is going to cost Quebeckers?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-06-01 12:03 [p.20074]
Madam Speaker, we all know that bees play a key role in biodiversity, but bee populations are currently being decimated by commonly used insecticides called neonicotinoids. In fact, 233 scientists from around the world are urging countries to ban neonicotinoids. Just yesterday, the government decided to allow the continued use of imidacloprid, the most common neonicotinoid. Now it has decided to launch consultations. Rather than take action, the government is going to hold consultations, but 233 researchers and 34 different countries have already weighed in. Is that not a consultation?
When will the government listen to scientists instead of chemical companies?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2018-06-01 12:55 [p.20087]
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his speech.
Sustainable development is not an easy thing to achieve in our oil-driven country. Sustainable development means linking economic growth to environmental considerations.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Liberals' vision of sustainable development, which I think the Prime Minister has made clear. He said that to help the environment, the Liberals plan to build more pipelines and further develop the oil sands, generating revenue that they will use to set environmental standards and fight climate change.
Does my colleague think this reasoning holds water?
Results: 1 - 15 of 114 | Page: 1 of 8

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data