Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 77
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-18 13:06 [p.29290]
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the parliamentary secretary, who said that a price on pollution improves economic competitiveness. That is what OECD researchers are saying. That is a message for my Conservative colleagues.
However, I do not agree with the Liberals, who keep repeating that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is not the case for Trans Mountain.
The more we increase oil sands development, the more we increase greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a few statistics. Since 2005, the oil sands have grown by 158%. Alberta is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which rose by 28.7% between 2009 and 2016.
The economy and the environment do not always go hand in hand, when it comes to the extraction of dirty oil from the oil sands.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-05-07 11:05 [p.27445]
Madam Speaker, I do not agree with my colleague's claim that the Liberals have started to reduce their support for fossil fuels. In the last year they handed out $19 billion in support to the oil industry, by offering tax credits, buying a pipeline and renovating pipelines. That claim could not be further from the truth.
Meanwhile, as the media have reported, Dominic Champagne and some 60 organizations are urging the government to take action, proposing a green new deal. They are proposing strong measures to transform our economy and make the green shift.
Is this government prepared to adopt the green new deal? The first step would be to cancel the announcement of $19 billion in support for Canada's oil industry.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-05-07 11:40 [p.27450]
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech advocating for the environment and against pipelines. Could he tell us what led to the change in his party's position in that area?
During the last election campaign, that party's position was more ambiguous. When NDP members were speaking English, they were often pro-pipeline, but in French, it was the opposite. This led the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to say that, on the contrary, they were neither for nor against energy east. Then their position changed. Some people even said that Thomas Mulcair quit the position of leader because he was not pro-oil enough.
I would like to know what led my colleague's party to change its position.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-05-07 12:40 [p.27459]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that the government intends to comply with the Paris Agreement adopted by COP 21.
Since the last election, oil sands development has increased by 24%, and the investments that have been announced show that it will continue to grow by 8% a year. A year ago, the government announced $19 billion in aid for pipelines and oil production.
I would like to ask the member if this is part of the government's strategy for meeting the climate targets set by COP 21.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-19 11:12 [p.25483]
Madam Speaker, the motion moved by our NDP colleagues is entirely appropriate for one aspect of this scandal, namely the disastrous mismanagement shown by the Prime Minister's Office. Our colleagues who sponsored the motion are right to say that we need to hear from Ms. Wilson-Raybould and that we need a public inquiry. I support these requests—
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-19 11:13 [p.25483]
Madam Speaker, you are right. I apologize.
Regarding the utter mismanagement, I absolutely agree with the position taken by our colleagues from the second opposition party. I support a public inquiry and I agree that the former attorney general of Canada should testify.
That said, we must also consider the equally devastating consequences of this scandal on the third parties involved, namely, the SNC-Lavalin workers, who have nothing to do with the fraudulent acts committed by the former executives at that company. For the workers, suppliers and other third parties who do business with SNC-Lavalin, reaching a remediation agreement seems crucial to me.
Why is there nothing in the motion moved by the second opposition party regarding the importance of reaching a remediation agreement as well as protecting Quebec's civil engineers and their expertise?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-02-19 15:47 [p.25525]
Madam Speaker, first the Prime Minister blamed the former justice minister because she did not complain about not being pressured. Then he said that it was Scott Brison's fault. Surely the Prime Minister mixed up the SNC-Lavalin fiasco with the Davie shipyard file. The latest development is that his top adviser has stepped down, refusing to take the blame for something he did not do and not wanting to be a distraction, though he did in fact become one. It is easy to get lost in all of these versions. This is “Fifty shades of Butts”.
Meanwhile, no party in the House seems concerned about the future of the thousands of workers at SNC-Lavalin.
Can my colleague explain how this motion helps, or does not help, the thousands of SNC-Lavalin workers?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-05 11:54 [p.25255]
Mr. Speaker, this issue of protecting jobs is essential. It is important to us in the Bloc Québécois as well. We believe that the government would have to negotiate with the Government of Quebec and the unions to ensure that these workers are properly protected. That goes without saying. I do not think that a debate on this in the House is necessary. I hope that we do not need a debate to tell government members how they should act on these issues.
However, the purpose of the House is to serve the people, and the people of Quebec are tired of having to file two tax returns. They are asking for the single tax return. This is a long-standing request. Minister Séguin asked for this back in 2004, and it has always been recognized that the jurisdiction best prepared to manage the issue of tax returns is the Government of Quebec.
Today, our colleagues in the Conservative Party have joined us in making this request. I thank them for that. However, we have to wonder why, since they were in power for 10 years, after all, and could have taken action on this back then. At least they are taking action this year. We cannot fault them for doing so, and we are very happy about it.
That said, there needs to be some movement. We are here to serve the people. The people need this government to step up and take responsibility, without putting the blame on collective agreements. It makes no sense. It is disgraceful and unworthy of a Parliament.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2019-02-05 12:07 [p.25257]
Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about everyone agrees that having a single tax return makes the most sense and would save time and money.
We know that individuals spend $300 million and businesses spend $400 million every year to prepare their tax returns. I do not understand the Liberal's very weak argument. It is as though they are telling us that even though having a single tax return would save money, it would result in job losses. Could these people not be used to fight tax evasion or improve the efficiency of the Phoenix pay system? I think these public servants would be very happy with that.
Then we have our Conservative friends who, with an election looming and even though they have not taken action on this issue, are suddenly presenting this request. We agree that it is a good thing.
However, we do not agree with their assertion that the Conservative government respects provincial jurisdictions. We have seen their response concerning Quebec: they refuse to reconsider multiculturalism, and they support institutional bilingualism and kick-starting energy east.
The NDP says that it is not necessarily against the principle, but they will not support it in order to save jobs. I believe it would be more logical to support the principle—
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-02-05 12:52 [p.25264]
Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, in 2004, Yves Séguin, then the Quebec finance minister, called for a single tax return. In 2008, the Bloc Québécois took up that call on behalf of Quebeckers. Fourteen and a half years have passed since then, four and a half under a Liberal government and 10 under a Conservative one.
Why should we now believe the Conservatives and their call for a single tax return?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2019-02-05 13:19 [p.25267]
Mr. Speaker, how can we trust the Liberals? I would like an answer from my colleague opposite. The Liberal government has not kept any of its promises since it was elected, except for legalizing marijuana, which it did haphazardly.
The Liberals have been unable to crack down on tax havens. They even gave out contracts to KPMG, which is swimming in murky waters, when it comes to tax havens. They have not even been able to pay their employees. How can they tell us today that Quebec cannot effectively administer its own income tax returns? They are already administering the GST and the QST.
Why can Quebec not administer the income tax returns? Unlike this government, Quebec is the only tax authority that honours its commitments.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-02-05 13:35 [p.25270]
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand my colleague when he says he wants to make life easier for Quebeckers. He listed a bunch of measures that have been implemented to make it easier for people to file their tax returns. However, when it comes to a single tax return, which would make life easier for Quebeckers, the answer is no.
Let us go back in time. On December 1, 1997, the Liberal government of the day signed a labour transfer implementation agreement with Quebec. The agreement provided for the transfer of 1,338 employees.
If it was possible in 1997, why is it no longer possible in 2019?
View Michel Boudrias Profile
BQ (QC)
View Michel Boudrias Profile
2019-02-05 16:38 [p.25298]
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a proposal that would benefit all Quebeckers. We have repeated ad nauseam that Quebec's National Assembly reached a unanimous consensus. There are 78 Quebec MPs from all parties, who represent voters of every stripe and from every walk of life. In the last election, they voted in favour of a proposal to file a single tax return.
Maybe my colleague could help me with something I am wondering about. How can certain parties, especially the Liberal Party and the NDP, not be willing to uphold the unanimous consensus of our voters and our provincial counterparts in Quebec City?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' motion is interesting. They say they are against any and all tax increases, and they offer up a number of measures and examples they feel are important. Some of those measures are in fact interesting. However, what we have a problem with is the idea of being against all tax increases. Some very high income earners evade taxes. Some rich taxpayers are taking advantage. For example, some web giants and foreign companies pay no taxes.
Does my colleague opposite think it is okay for those companies and individuals not to pay tax?
Should we be congratulating the Conservatives for wanting to help the very rich with this motion? Ultimately, they would not really be helping the very poor.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-01-29 12:50 [p.24956]
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague for giving part of his speech in French. I greatly appreciate it.
I would also like to remind members that the Bloc Québécois believes it is important to have a plan to quickly eliminate the deficit. We agree with the principle of the motion being debated today. There is no justification for spending more than we take in, given the economic climate.
We are concerned that the government solution to reducing the deficit is to again cut transfers to Quebec and the other provinces, in such sectors as health, even though the needs are real.
However, we cannot accept the part stating that the government should commit to never raising taxes of any kind. For example, we want the richest 1% to pay more taxes. We also agree with the whole issue of fighting tax havens. We want the government to look for more money in tax havens.
I would like to ask my colleague about that. Does he agree with the idea of doing more to recover money from tax havens?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-01-29 13:34 [p.24962]
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Longueuil would have appreciated an answer about Netflix collecting tax.
We agree with the principle of the motion, which is about having a realistic plan to balance the budget as quickly as possible. However, the Bloc Québécois is against the last part of the motion about a commitment to never raise taxes of any kind. We are for the carbon tax or something similar, which would give Quebec a relative advantage.
We would also like to see tax hikes for the wealthiest 1% of the population as a way of reducing the middle class's tax burden. We also want the government to go after all businesses, beginning with Canadian banks, that report the bulk of their earnings in tax havens and do not pay tax. We think that would be a good way to balance the budget. Things that are immoral should be illegal.
I would like my colleague to comment on that. Why not make things that are immoral illegal and tax the profits that banks declare in tax havens?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2019-01-29 13:49 [p.24964]
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are lucky because we can use green energy to grow our economy. We are perfectly positioned to combine the two. Here, by buying a pipeline, this government is promoting oil sands development even as it claims to be an environmental crusader. That does not work for us at all.
We are in favour of eliminating the deficit quickly. One way to do that would be to increase taxes on Bay Street banks that post record profits every quarter.
Why is the Liberal government not looking at that option? Why is it not considering making things that are immoral illegal and taxing the profits that banks squirrel away in tax havens to legally avoid paying taxes here? Why not just make that illegal? That would go a long way toward eliminating the deficit.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2019-01-29 16:10 [p.24987]
Madam Speaker, I cannot ask my question without first telling the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government that I really admire him, even though I may not always agree with what he says. He is a great parliamentarian. There should be a documentary about him. He seems to be in this House 24/7. He is a key part of this parliamentary democracy, I must say.
Now, we are talking about balancing the budget, and therefore about taxing and spending. I would like to know how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government can look taxpayers in the eye, without any shame, when his government is allowing Canada's big banks to continue engaging in tax avoidance. They send their money to Barbados, which means it cannot be put to good use here. They make billions of dollars in profits every quarter. That could help a lot of people, particularly in the health care system.
How could my colleague vote against our motion, which would have made that illegal?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-02-12 16:08 [p.17064]
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by how my colleague began her speech earlier. She said she wanted to have a clear and honest debate. I agree.
However, when someone tries to tell me that oil from the tar sands is clean oil, I am not sure how honest that is. When someone tells me that we import oil from Saudi Arabia, that, too, is not being honest. Some people say that it is safer to transport oil by train. However, the U.S. department studied spills between 2002 and 2012, specifically spills from pipelines versus trains, and found that train transportation is not safer. Those are the facts and the studies that have been done.
The federal government, whether Conservative or Liberal, takes a heavy handed approach with the provinces, including Quebec, deciding for them and ignoring provincial governments, which just want to protect their citizens.
How is this justified?
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2018-02-06 16:33 [p.16850]
Mr. Speaker, in thirty seconds, I will say that the Bloc Québécois fully supports amending the Conflict of Interest Act because what the Liberal MPs have been telling us today is that every member of the House can violate the Conflict of Interest Act at least once without any consequences.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2018-02-06 16:47 [p.16852]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that we need to respect the institution, as though the Conflict of Interest Act is not part of the institution and as though violating that act is not an attack on the institution.
The Liberals are trying to derail the debate on the Prime Minister's supposed lack of judgment in accepting the vacations. In fact, they are telling us that voters are not interested in this issue or that they are interested in other things.
I think that is unacceptable coming from a government that claimed to want to do politics differently. Voters are cynical about the institution, Parliament, and all elected officials because they think that, once people get elected, they no longer respect the institution and, by extension, they no longer respect Canadians. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did.
Before we even get into talking about consequences or restitution, it is important to note that he demonstrated a lack of judgment unworthy of his position. Would he ever have told us during the election in a leadership debate that, if he ever violated the Conflict of Interest Act, all he would do is apologize and we would move on to something else? How can my colleague explain the Prime Minister's lack of judgment?
View Simon Marcil Profile
BQ (QC)
View Simon Marcil Profile
2017-10-17 16:52 [p.14192]
Madam Speaker, we can agree that after 10 years in opposition purgatory, the Liberal government has not really changed its corporate culture.
Who would my colleague say is the worst Minister of Finance between the dishonourable Paul Martin, who registered his ships in Barbados, or the current finance minister, who hid a villa in France?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-03-09 16:24 [p.9619]
Madam Speaker, during question period this afternoon, I quoted comments made by a journalist in his column today. These comments could be perceived as being unparliamentary. I acknowledge that I cannot do indirectly what I cannot do directly in this place. I wish to unconditionally withdraw my comments.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the NDP for the motion they presented today because I believe tackling tax havens and tax evasion is important.
We also need to fight organizations like KPMG which, as a result of complacency, opportunity and greed, choose to help their clients by enabling them to bypass the tax system. Because they are fortunate and have the means, these clients can tell themselves that everything is fine; they do not need to pay taxes, let the poor take care of it.
In the past, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill, which later became a motion, to stop tax evasion through Barbados. We were happy when the NDP supported our motion at that time. We are also pleased that the NDP is proposing that we conduct investigations and tackle this issue, but we wonder whether we should not go even further.
We think that the Canada Revenue Agency should send all information directly to Revenu Québec the moment it opens a file. Given that the Canada Revenue Agency is not doing its job, Revenu Québec could do it for them. What does the member think of that idea?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, personally I find this motion presented by the NDP today very interesting. I listened to the speech given just a while ago by my colleague from Vancouver East and it seems to me that this motion focused on tax evasion, specifically the KPMG case, on the investigations that need to be launched and also on the tacit agreements that allow companies to walk away without paying any penalties. Furthermore, KPMG is not going to be penalized for its practices.
What I am trying to understand here is why we are lumping other things in with it. Stock options and corporate taxes are also mentioned. I completely agree with my colleague that stock options and corporations should be taxed more. However, there is really no link between those issues and tax havens. That is why I am trying to understand if we may be getting things confused.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, the Liberal member, obviously part of the government, is praising the Liberal government’s plan.
Last year, in that plan, about $400 million was announced for going after money that should have been paid to the government. However, when investments are made in the Canada Revenue Agency, for example, to go after money, does that mean that tax havens and fraud artists are being targeted, or are hairdressers, bartenders and restaurant operators also going to be targeted?
The government says it is very interested in the middle class, and we can see that. When we want to go after the big fish, as the motion introduced by the Bloc concerning Barbados was intended to do, the Liberals stand in our way. At the international, the big fish like KPMG get an amnesty.
In our opinion, the government should pay more attention to the wealthier people and go after the big fish. Essentially, if the government of Canada does not do its job, it should let Quebec do it.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about fairness. In French, we might use the words justice or équité or traitement équitable.
I wonder whether my colleague thinks it is fair to vote against a bill that puts an end to tax avoidance and tax evasion using tax havens like Barbados. The Canada Revenue Agency is also granting amnesty to fraudsters who come up with shell games to avoid having to pay income tax.
In his speech, my colleague talked about reducing income tax. Not too long ago, Alain Deneault wrote a book in which he asked whether Canada was becoming a tax haven.
Transforming Canada into a tax haven, letting poor people and ordinary people suffocate and not making the rich pay taxes: is that the Liberal strategy for combatting tax evasion?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see my NDP colleagues seize upon this issue, because it is important to fight tax evasion. It is important to fight the fraudsters who think they have all the rights and can do what they want.
At the same time, on the other side we have a government that is laughing at the population and the people. Solutions are proposed, such as the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois designed to combat tax evasion, but no one is interested in them. After that, we hear that, in the KPMG case, preferential treatment and amnesties are being handed out. Basically, they are continuing to encourage people who do not need to pay for their crimes, because it is indeed a crime to circumvent the law in this way.
However, the Canada Revenue Agency does not seem to be doing its job, and the federal government seems to be standing in our way. This morning, we in the Bloc Québécois asked for something. We asked to have the information forwarded to Revenu Québec as soon as a case is opened and even before it wraps up. That way, should the federal agency be found to be complacent, Revenu Québec can do its job and and collect the money if Canada does not.
Would my colleague like to support us on this?
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am particularly happy to see one of my NDP colleagues seize upon this issue, because we in the Bloc Québécois have sometimes felt a little alone when debating this matter in the past.
Earlier, I asked a question a number of times to her colleagues. In Quebec, we have ways of fighting tax evasion. When KPMG is offered an amnesty, for example, the message that is sent to fraudsters and tax avoiders is that they can try their luck, and if they are caught they will have no fine to pay, they will just have to repay what they owe. They can try their luck, and if they aren’t caught, they can keep the money. That is the vision being defended by the federal government.
We are proposing a new method: as soon as an investigation is opened, the information is sent directly to Revenu Québec so it can initiate proceedings and retrieve its money if Canada does not. Earlier I asked my NDP colleagues this question twice and received no response.
I don’t know if it is the word “Quebec” that is scaring my colleagues, but I would like to know their thoughts.
View Xavier Barsalou-Duval Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it seems like the government is in a tight spot without even realizing it.
On the one hand, it brags and asks us to trust it because it is investing $444 million in fighting tax evasion and plans to recover some money. On the other hand, it hosts $1,500 cocktail parties with people with deep pockets, those with piles of money who are granted amnesty when they are caught for tax evasion. Then, the government opposes bills that could put an end to tax evasion in tax havens.
How can we trust the government when it acts this way? It says one thing, then does something completely different.
Results: 1 - 30 of 77 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data