- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Nov/7/23 12:21:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his always relevant questions. I will keep his sister-in-law Carole in my thoughts.
Being there for people is a good thing. It is the essence of an MP's job. Our constituents delegated responsibility to us so that we could act for them in Parliament. We have to be there for our constituents. We have to be there for the public.
Electoral considerations will never be entirely absent, of course. However, electoral considerations should be front and centre during election campaigns, not during a session, when we should be there to help the less fortunate and, as my colleague who spoke before me was saying, to reconcile social and economic justice.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:20:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be happy to hear that I completely agree with her on that. However, I do not believe that the proposed measures will achieve the desired outcome or stated intent. I agree with the purpose, but I do not believe that these measures are the best way to achieve it.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:18:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, the question from my colleague opposite is relevant.
I have not taken a position against the tax. I do not want to leave any room for confusion here. I also did not say that heat pumps are useless. I said that heat pumps still need financing and that the tax, in its current form, will not be affected by a goods and services tax reduction. I therefore did not take a position on whether the tax is relevant or not, but rather on the measure used to mitigate its impact.
I do not believe it will achieve the desired effect.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by extending my heartfelt greetings to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who often contact me about the precarious state of the French language and about immigration. It cannot be said often enough that the latest Official Languages Act is nothing but a bilingualism legislation that is not in Quebec's favour. We need to remember that.
Today's debate is on an NDP motion to remove the GST from home heating. Let us analyze the motion a little deeper. It states that “2023 saw a record fire season due to climate change”. That is a fact, sadly. The motion also mentions that “Canadians continue to struggle with dramatic increases to the cost of living while Canada’s biggest corporations, including oil and gas corporations, post record profits”. That is also a fact. However, the NDP mentions neither banks, who are in the same situation, nor their hobby horse, grocery stores. The motion also mentions “federal government programs aimed at supporting energy efficient retrofits” that are “hard to access”. That part of the motion is somewhat interpretive. I will go through the motion item by item.
At first glance, the motion seems to be talking about social justice and equity. It seems as though the intention of this motion is to provide help to those who need it most, which is keeping with the NDP's usual stance. However, sometimes we need to pay closer attention to determine whether the measures that are actually going to be implemented are consistent with the stated intention. Let me explain.
I will give an example from the business world, because that is what I am familiar with. Over the past 20 years, in the business community, we have been hearing a lot of managerial discourse designed to motivate employees or take advantage of them, as the case may be. Employers have been talking about responsibility when what they mean is accountability. Everyone has been talking about kindness, but it does not mean anything to anyone. Employers have been talking about team work, when employees are actually in competition. People often use big words—and the Leader of the Opposition is an expert in that area—without any real understanding of what those words actually mean.
I would remind my colleagues, who are always happy to hear it, that a word is a construct of sound and meaning. Sometimes the sound changes the meaning, and we can be misled by that. As the saying goes, the end justifies the means. In recent years, we have noticed that people have often been confusing the ends and the means. They think that the means are the ends, which is an error of judgment. When members say that the carbon tax is an end, that is an error of judgment. The carbon tax is simply a means.
Getting back to the NDP motion, it seems noble on the surface. Who would not want to help the least fortunate? Is that really what this is about, though? I was surprised to see a motion like this up for debate this week at this point in the session. For some time now, we have been witnessing the Liberal government in turmoil. It does not know if it is coming or going with its flagship carbon tax initiative. First it says it will apply the tax. Then it says it will not. Then it says it will apply it on some things, but not on others. As the classic song goes, the Liberal government's internal dialogue is basically, “Should I stay or should I go?”
I would even go so far as to say that, in its confusion, the government is dragging its confidence and supply agreement partner down with it. I can see how desperately the NDP is trying to distinguish itself from the Liberals. Removing the GST from heating is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.
Measures already exist for heat pumps and alternative heating systems. Quebec talks about energy equity. There are actually numerous other options. At the end of the day, who is going to pay for heat pumps? It is typical of the NDP to continually ask for measures without concerning themselves with how they will be financed. Funding programs requires revenue, and that revenue usually comes from taxes. We have to be careful. I know that the New Democrats are in favour of taxing oil companies, but let us not confuse reality with obsession. Who will pay for heat pumps? The oil companies, of course.
That will mean more investments in oil so that oil companies can finance the heat pumps in question. This seems to me to be the antithesis of the NDP's usual position.
The NDP likes to say it will tax profits. I am not against that. However, profits exist for a reason. Take a risk and sometimes that risk is rewarded. Taxing excess profits is fine, but we need a definition of “excess”.
Basically, when we talk about helping the most disadvantaged, we are talking about equity. Equity, when defined, is a fair assessment of what each person is entitled to. What are lower-income families entitled to? What are the people entitled to when they benefit from the GST credit because heating is included in the rent? That could be troublesome.
I would like to propose that we act according to what is right, or social justice, in other words, that we do the right thing at the right time, in the right way and for the right reasons. I do not think that is what is happening here. Honestly, I believe that the stated intention of helping the less fortunate is nothing more than a smokescreen for the NDP's veiled attempt to hold on to votes or win votes as it goes through challenging times. Passing the NDP motion would be a mistake, if not a failure. For the NDP, it would amount to a subtle betrayal of its own principles.
In light of the various arguments and given my conviction that its purported purpose is not directly related to its concealed aim or stated intention, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the NDP motion.
1070 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:54:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his insults.
I do not know what he read in La Presse recently. He and I must have read different things. Earlier I heard all kinds of falsehoods, jokes, smears, deceptions, hypocrisies, fantasies, inventions, fabrications and trickery. In all of this, I heard nothing about what was in the La Presse article he referred to. I wonder if he could enlighten me on that first.
Second, I would like him to define “common sense” for me. Rather than turning it into an empty slogan, I would like him to explain what he really means, philosophically, when he says “common sense”.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 4:32:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. However, anger is a not a good guide when it comes to this subject.
We are talking about inflation and a suggestion that was made by the Conservative Party. I would like to know what my colleague opposite sees as alternative solutions for increasing seniors' purchasing power.
What about making the economy more resilient, for example, by rebuilding the supply chain, reducing our dependence on oil or taking action to address the labour shortage?
What other proposals does my colleague have?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
