SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Jean-Denis Garon

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Mirabel
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 64%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 190 - May/3/23
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)
  • May/3/23 7:23:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-6 
Madam Speaker, Bill S-6 contains a series of regulatory changes that could make life simpler for companies and the business community in Quebec and Canada. Not to make any assumptions, Madam Speaker, but you do not look like someone who would want to file two tax returns, because your time is valuable and you do not want to waste it doing the same thing twice. I know you do not want to file two tax returns, and neither do Quebec businesses. This was confirmed by a motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling for a single tax return. Until Quebec becomes a country and we are independent, does my colleague not think that it would be a good idea to make life simpler for our business owners by allowing them to file a single tax return?
139 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 41 - Mar/4/22
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border