- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, at the committee stage of this bill, the Conservatives introduced an amendment that would have required any major investment from a state-owned enterprise outside the Five Eyes to be considered a national security risk. My riding and a few other Quebec ridings are home to the aerospace industry. An investment from Airbus, a French-German state-owned enterprise, would have been automatically considered a threat to national security. That amendment could have posed a serious threat to major investments in Quebec, major investments in the aerospace industry and major investments in my riding.
I would like to know whether my colleague still agrees that such investments, in my riding and in our aerospace sector, should be automatically considered a threat to national security.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister and my colleagues.
At the end of last year, we learned that the RCMP had allowed Sinclair Technologies, a company with ties to communist China, access to its security systems. We then were witness to a failure of regular surveillance mechanisms and a failure by the government to try to control access to our technologies by this company controlled in part by China. It took a long time before the government finally decided to end this contract.
My colleague is more familiar with Bill C‑34 than I am. With the new amendments to the Canada Investment Act, is Sinclair Technologies the type of company the minister, who is not listening to us right now, should pay particular attention to?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 5:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, in our view, Bill C-8 represents a significant encroachment on provincial tax jurisdictions. This new tax on underused housing infringes on the property taxation jurisdiction.
The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment at the Standing Committee on Finance. We asked that Quebec and the provinces be given the right to opt out, so that the provinces could tell the federal government not to encroach on their areas of jurisdiction.
The Liberal committee chair of the Standing Committee on Finance ruled the amendment inadmissible, which meant that it could not even be debated.
Does my colleague think it would have been a good idea to give the provinces the right to opt out on property taxation?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 4:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, personally speaking, I have never seen the federal government start to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces and then express regret and step back.
I get the impression that by encroaching on the property tax domain, the government is putting one foot in Quebec's taxation jurisdiction, and the next step will be to dance on the grave of provincial fiscal jurisdictions.
I would like my colleague to tell me if the federal government should refrain from encroaching on this, the last untouched area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 1:30:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, what I find funny is that the Liberals are telling us that it was in their platform.
I am stunned that they have not read their own platform, because I can assure them that we would have noticed. Nothing is more permanent than a temporary little tax. This will have long-lasting effects and will likely be expanded.
We should all be as concerned as my colleague from Joliette.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 1:17:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you, especially since we will be closing out the week together. Thank you for recognizing me.
Today, we are debating Bill C-8, which contains a number of budget measures, which we support for the most part. The Bloc Québécois is a party that proposes and supports measures that are in Quebec's interest.
This bill includes several standard elements and funds allocated under agreements with first nations, which we must endorse. Generally speaking, because these measures are useful, we will vote in favour of this bill.
However, there is a big hole in the bill, as there is nothing to address the housing crisis. The pandemic has changed people's habits. Some sectors in the market are facing severe shortages and, as several colleagues mentioned, the cost of renting or buying has increased considerably.
The economy will reopen, and immigration will resume, because Canada will accept newcomers and foreign students. That makes us happy. However, that is going to put pressure on the housing market in Quebec and the provinces.
As we have said repeatedly, the federal government has almost completely disengaged over time. From 1960 to 1995, it worked with Quebec and the provinces. For example, it supported the construction of about 25,000 new housing units. These past 20 years, however, there has been nothing. I am not saying it is any one party's fault. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are to blame for doing nothing, and now we have a major housing shortage.
The government has since launched the national housing strategy and plans to help build 6,000 units per year, but that will not do much to alleviate the shortage I was just talking about.
The program numbers are convoluted because they include provincial money, private sector money and other sources of funding. Not only is this program less generous than what the Liberal government would have us believe, but it has been complicated for Quebec.
We lost a good two-and-a-half years negotiating. Housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, which we confirmed when we examined the bill in committee. Nevertheless, the Liberal government insisted on trying to impose its conditions, which shows the federal spending power. The federal government holds the purse strings, and so it has the provinces on a string.
Now it has come back to haunt them. Prices are rising and everyone is concerned about it, so the government is looking for a magical solution by creating a new tax on unused housing. This is a fiscal microaggression, an expression I am sure our NDP colleagues will appreciate. It is a small tax that will generate only $100 million in revenue. That is a small amount, and it is really easy for people to get around paying it. I am no tax expert, but I predict that people from other countries who have a house in Canada will start sending their children here on vacation for a few days so that they do not have to pay this tax.
This is also a one-size-fits-all tax. I am an economist and, during my career, I often looked at CMHC reports and expert reports on the housing market. Experts in the field study the housing market one segment, province, region or metropolitan area at a time, and yet this government is proposing a one-size-fits-all tax that will be the same everywhere, without any of the distinctions that a competent individual would make between the different markets. Sometimes, I feel like I am the only one here who understands that Montreal is not Vancouver and Saint‑Colomban is not Halifax. That is a problem.
Despite all that, this tax infringes on the last big area of taxation over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. Patrick Taillon, a professor at Université Laval and recognized constitutional expert, testified about this before our committee. He said, and I quote:
With this tax, the federal government is, for the first time in the history of Confederation, at least, to my knowledge [and he knows a lot about this], encroaching on a form of taxation thus far left, and rightly so, in the hands of local authorities at the municipal and provincial levels. I am referring to the property tax.
He said that the federal government had shown wisdom in leaving this in the hands of the provinces. I would argue that the federal government had already lost much of its remaining wisdom when it comes to respecting provincial tax jurisdictions, and now with Bill C-8, it has none left at all. The government is fully treading on provincial jurisdictions.
This is a serious first step, because it will require infrastructure. When the value of a property or an asset is assessed, it has to be taxed as a percentage. This requires officials and infrastructure, mainly at the municipal level. That is a big problem.
This shows us once again that the federal government cannot help but interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at the slightest temptation and any time there is a crisis, especially one that it has partially or fully caused.
History shows that whenever the federal government decides to take a little foray into the provinces' tax fields, it is often a one-way trip, and Quebec ends up footing the bill. That is how it is, and I think it is extremely serious.
During the election campaign, the city of Saint‑Colomban held a fantastic debate hosted by its mayor, Mr. Lalande, whom I salute. The mayors have told us that all towns and cities in Quebec need more tax revenue and that they need to look after their infrastructure. Some municipalities are having infrastructure problems because of climate change.
These mayors were telling us that they cannot rely on property tax revenues alone. That is all our cities have left, but the federal government is poking its nose in. Of course, the government will tell us that it is a small tax of just $100 million, but it is about the principle.
At committee, Mr. Taillon pointed out that this tax might very well be unconstitutional. On top of that, it will be ineffective. I am very familiar with tax systems, and this one will not get the job done. Not only is it a mistake, but it also shows a lack of respect for the fiscal jurisdictions of the provinces, for the Constitution and for our municipalities, which are asking us not to allow anyone to set foot in their tax field.
The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment. There have been some major tax collection agreements. That is how Quebec got its own tax return. The other provinces get their tax base defined by the federal government. In the past, there have even been tax rental agreements, where some provinces rented their tax base to the federal government through a bilateral agreement. Some provinces did that, while others said no. Typically, Quebec was against that. Ontario did it and then withdrew, but it was done through a bilateral agreement.
In Quebec, we asked for common sense and respect for the Constitution, for Quebec and for historical precedents. We told the government that if it wanted to tread on our jurisdiction, then it needed to ask us ahead of time, and the provinces that were unwilling could establish their own policies. Quebec is capable of establishing its own housing policies, especially since housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, I have to blame the table for not allowing this amendment. The Bloc Québécois still thinks that this would have been a solution for allowing willing provinces to consent to the federal government using this tax. Unfortunately, this was refused. The fact remains that we need co-operation, which is missing from this clause from Bill C‑8.
I will close by quoting Mr. Taillon.
In short, if co‑operative federalism means anything, the very least the government can do is consult the provinces and negotiate agreements to implement this policy, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The co‑operative mechanism should not, for that matter, allow the federal government to exert any authority over property tax.
I would have said it myself, but it was said so well at the finance committee.
1423 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 12:43:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who so ably talked about the federal immunization campaign. I notice that the federal government is far from being immunized against encroachments into areas of provincial taxation.
Under the Constitution, taxation was originally the direct jurisdiction of the provinces, and the only area of taxation for which jurisdiction and the spirit of the Constitution are still respected is property tax.
With respect to taxing unoccupied housing, does my colleague not think that before the federal government starts taxing in areas of jurisdiction that are exclusively provincial, it should get the provinces' consent first?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
