- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
- May/29/23 1:16:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, these oil and gas projects will indeed exacerbate the climate crisis and also negatively impact peoples' health. The primary determinant of health and disease is the environment. That is quite obvious. They cannot see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to the environment, there should be no compromise. Then the government is surprised that it needs to sink huge sums into taking care of peoples' health, at least in Quebec. It is all related. How the government is choosing to invest its money does not suggest a real intention to move forward and improve the right to a healthy environment.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, behind all these numbers and causes, behind what we call inflation, the risk of recession and the economy, are human beings. I would propose taking a people-centred view or reading of what we experiencing as a result of this pressure, this crisis, this inflationary spike.
First, the bill proposes—and it is very technical—to amend the Income Tax Act with a temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax credit. The bill effectively creates a new refundable and therefore tax-free tax credit of $229.50 for a single person, $459 for a couple, and $114.75 per dependent child. People will then receive a cheque.
Obviously that is a good thing. I was saying earlier that we need meaningful solutions that are not strictly one-time measures. However, if they are, they need to be targeted in order to help the people who need them most, those who are struggling to make ends meet. To be eligible for the full amount, people have to have earned less than $39,826 in 2021. The cheque is reduced by 15¢ per dollar for people who earned more than that amount. In the end some 11 million people will have access to this measure.
The Bloc Québécois obviously supports this bill. A rare consensus has emerged in the House to get this small measure passed. It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C-30, since we included this measure in the budget expectations we sent to the Minister of Finance back in March. Inflation demands a comprehensive approach to the economy. What we need to avoid above all else is proposing simplistic measures that may look very interesting on the surface and fire up our collective imagination but that, in reality, are not sustainable or strategic for the economy.
Since the pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of government intervention and support. However, while we did need to support the people who really needed it, the Bloc said very early on that the measures needed to be adjusted to avoid any negative effects.
That is the same message we are sending the government about inflation. We want the measures to be adjusted so they are properly targeted, well thought out and intelligent. However, the document that was tabled, which proposes $100 billion in spending, is all over the map. It does not have the comprehensive approach and meaningful measures we advised.
Statistics Canada has identified the factors behind the rapid increase in prices, such as food prices.
These include ongoing supply chain disruptions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, extreme weather and higher input costs. This situation calls not for one-time measures, but for long-term measures that will have a meaningful effect on the economy and provide predictability for people grappling with these ups and downs. Those are the kinds of measures that the Bloc Québécois is proposing to fight inflation. It is not enough to say that gas taxes must be cut.
I am a consumer and, unfortunately, I still have a gas-powered vehicle. Naturally, I would be happy to stop paying tax on gas. As I am protected by parliamentary privilege, I will say that it seems like the price at the pump is fixed by some kind of cartel. There seems to be some collusion in that regard.
I have never known oil companies to not turn a profit and not take advantage of all that. I even have the sense that there is enough fossil fuel for the next 50 years, but that they want to make us pay more because they know all this will end soon, given all the transitions that must be made.
Bernard Landry was one of my mentors, and he told me that he would love to do this, but he was not sure the money would reach consumers.
The government is getting richer as it collects more taxes on the higher prices. It should take this surplus and redistribute it intelligently, implementing targeted measures for people in need. I am not an economist, but I have learned that the last thing we should do in an inflationary period is unilaterally lower taxes. Not everyone needs that anyway.
In addition, the government should use its surplus to rebuild the economy and insulate it from a future inflationary crisis or recession. It must invest in the parts of the economic system that will enable us to face the challenges of tomorrow. One of those challenges is the labour shortage. I will come back to that because what is really bothering me at this point is the fact that our seniors are the first to suffer from higher inflation. A society that cannot take care of its frailest, most vulnerable members is a society that is heading for disaster.
Seniors no longer have an income or a salary that could increase. Their income is capped. They have a small amount of savings that is dwindling, causing them stress. As my mother used to say, people do not die of good health. We must therefore take care of these people, and those who are still able must be allowed to rejoin the workforce because there is a labour shortage. These are skilled workers, and if any of them are willing to go back to work, we should let them. It is going to take meaningful measures to fix this issue, and that is what I meant when I was talking about meaningful solutions. The Bloc Québécois has many to propose.
I am now ready to take questions.
965 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have already asked one of her colleagues this question, but perhaps this member could answer it.
I have previously spoken with several economists, including Bernard Landry, who was one of my mentors. We have already been in situations where we would have liked to eliminate the gas tax. As he explained, the problem with this approach is that there is no way of ensuring that what is being removed would not go into the pockets of the oil companies. We have no way of ensuring that that money would get to consumers.
Could the member explain how she would make sure this happened, or what she would do to guarantee that the consumer was not the one left to pay again?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:23:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, while our public finances have posted huge deficits and SMEs have been forced out of business because of the pandemic, we have seen oil companies, multinationals and corporations making massive profits and, unfortunately, doing very little to pay their fair share of taxes.
Since targeted measures will eventually have to be put in place to help people with affordability, does my colleague not find it shameful that oil companies heavily financed by the state and big Canadian banks are not paying their fair share because the government is not fighting tax havens and is therefore complicit in their use?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 4:52:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously has good intentions.
There might be a little problem with the approach, however. Would my colleague agree that a program should be created with the surplus to help workers whose livelihoods are at risk because of the rising cost of diesel and gas? I am talking about farmers, truckers, taxi drivers and everyone who is struggling to make ends meet right now. Does he think the surplus could go directly to the workers who need help?
If not, could he explain how he would ensure that removing the GST from diesel and gas would truly benefit consumers?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Liberals talk about the fight against global warming since 2015, but they bought a pipeline and are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.
Oil companies are currently raking in billions of dollars in profit while consumers pay over $2 a litre at the pump.
Is he not ashamed?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:29:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since the start of the conflict, the Conservatives have been calling on the government to impose strong sanctions.
In this morning's edition of La Presse, we learned from a respected journalist that Roman Abramovitch controls 28% of Evraz, which is supplying most of the steel to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline. We also learned that another Russian oligarch, Igor Makarov, is the main shareholder in Alberta gas company Spartan Delta. These two individuals are on the United States' list of Vladimir Putin's allies.
Canada is not ruling out confiscating their assets, at this time. Does my colleague agree with the Liberals?
Should we continue to apply a double standard for these individuals or should we immediately impose sanctions on them?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 12:08:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, history has shown us many times how destructive war can be.
A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report shows how destructive the climate crisis can be.
The Conservatives are claiming that theirs is an ethical solution. However, replacing one bad thing with another bad thing is not an ethical solution.
What does my colleague think of the Conservatives' claim that this is an ethical solution?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 10:29:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, La Presse newspaper published an excellent article by Paul Journet this morning about the Conservatives' obsession with building pipelines and exporting fossil fuels.
He wrote that there are two obstacles standing in Canada's way. First, competing countries are already lined up to supply Germany.
He mentioned Norway in particular and wrote that time is not on Canada's side. It would take a few years to get a liquefaction plant up and running, but the war has prompted the German chancellor to speed up his energy transition.
Paul Journet quoted the German chancellor as saying, “the faster we make progress with the development of renewable energies, the better”. The chancellor then added that his finance minister calls renewable energy “freedom energy”.
Does my colleague not believe that, rather than using—
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
