So V ote

Jun/6/22 5:17:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour. I call him that because his riding neighbours mine, on the Ontario side. I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois are concerned with the profit margins of our refineries. I think there is a way to address this issue. We must ask ourselves who is benefiting from the rising cost of gasoline right now. The oil companies are making a lot of money while retailers, on the other hand, are getting very little. There is a problem in this profit chain, and I think the government could work to reduce the profit margins of the refineries. Let us be honest: None of today's oil companies are on the verge of bankruptcy.

127 words

All Topics

Jun/6/22 5:15:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who always asks such pertinent questions. Yes, we support the principle of a luxury tax. However, we are calling on the government to rework this tax and amend it. If the government wanted to be thorough, it would have removed this clause from Bill C‑19, much like how clause 32 was removed, so that it could be studied more closely. It is still possible to do so. The government can amend the bill to bring it in line with what the aerospace industry is calling for. The government can count on us to help find wording that will address the problems we have with the existing clause.

116 words

Jun/6/22 5:07:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You interrupted my flow. I was thanking Ali Agougou and encouraging him to keep up the demanding, top-quality work. He is the vice-president of an association representing Quebec honey wine producers. He called my office to tell us that it makes no sense, that these producers are small local operations that do not make enough to export and should therefore not be taxed. Since they should continue to be exempt, he asked us whether the Bloc Québécois could do something. I immediately contacted our agriculture critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is Quebec's farming sector's staunchest defender. I also contacted the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is an international trade expert. I contacted other MPs, including our finance critic, to hear what they had to say. We realized that this was very serious for producers. If Bill C‑19 was not amended, it would have a major economic impact on their sector. We worked hard, and the producers shared their experience. After that, the committee looked at it. The finance critic really convinced the committee members that this was a good thing, not just for Quebec producers, but for Canadian producers as well. Apple cider and honey wine were exempted from the excise tax through an amendment to Bill C‑19. When I rise in the House, I say that I speak for the people who elected me. I do this work for Cidrerie du Minot, Frier Orchards, Capsule Temporelle, Cidrerie Hinchinbrooke, Ferme Black Creek—which I see every Wednesday at the farmer's market in Huntingdon— Cidrerie Entre Terre & Pierre, Domaine des Salamandres and Verger Hemmingford. I am so pleased that I was able to help draw attention to their problem and that, in the end, we are working together to unanimously change Bill C‑19 to their benefit and ours. I am sure that we all like apple cider and honey wine from Quebec. Everyone loves that. That is what people say, and the member for Jonquière agrees with me too, which means I am right. A member of our caucus discovered other things in this bill, including a change to a provision governing the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The member could not understand how this change ended up in this omnibus bill since the provision had nothing to do with the budget. In fact, it responded more to a long-standing request from some unions. Our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville pushed the minister for a timeline for the comprehensive employment insurance reform, which this change was supposed to be part of. We know that the minister has been putting off this reform almost indefinitely, but our member did not give up. She fought and argued at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to convince her colleagues that this change was inappropriate, that we should leave it out of the bill and instead take the time to study the matter. I was once a minister's chief of staff. When drafting a bill, it is important to go out and consult your base to confirm whether what you are presenting makes sense. In this case, it was so absurd that all the unions opposed what was written in the bill. I saw our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, in committee. She was passionate and thorough. She used to be the president of a major union in Quebec, and she vigorously defended the importance of removing this from the bill, so that all parliamentarians would have time to properly study and improve the EI reform, for the benefit of workers and unions, but also the government. These contributions and gains are based on rigour, and the members of the Bloc Québécois are certainly rigorous. I heard false accusations this morning about how our party is blocking and obstructing work. That is totally false, as anyone will tell you. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with members of the Bloc Québécois knows that we work to achieve gains, make compromises and get positive results for the well-being of the people we represent in Quebec. I would like to commend the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her perseverance and determination. She managed to convince the government, even before the motion was adopted in committee, to remove this from Bill C-19. I have two minutes left to explain to the House that there is a small amendment that we would have liked to discuss. It has to do with the luxury tax. It must be said that the Bloc Québécois truly agrees with the principle of a luxury tax. However, when we began talking to witnesses and to people in Quebec, we realized that, because of the way it was worded, this clause was going to have major repercussions for the aerospace industry and was expected to cause major problems. We asked that the luxury tax clause be changed and rewritten. Since we did not want to delay the passage of Bill C‑19, we suggested that the clause be removed rather than kept so that we could take the time to carefully listen to the pros and cons of the luxury tax. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The NDP and the Liberals adopted the clause as written anyway, even though it will really penalize part of Quebec's aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal. In summary, Bill C‑19 is a big bill. The Bloc Québécois worked very hard and achieved gains for Quebec and Quebeckers. We are very pleased about that. We will soon hear from my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who will tell us more about that. The Bloc Québécois is a political party that is hard-working, thorough, persistent and determined, and we want people to understand that we are here, in the House, to make advances for Quebec and Quebec businesses.

1051 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/6/22 5:04:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C‑19. Members probably heard me at the start of the day speaking against closure on this bill because, it must be said, Bill C‑19 is very long and contains many clauses to be studied. We are talking about 432 pages full of amendments to existing bills and little time to learn more about the implications of their application. That takes hard work, and I sincerely want to pay tribute to our finance critic, the member for Joliette, who spent many hours, together with his assistant Guillaume, listening to witnesses and determining what is in the best interests of Quebec, Quebec businesses and Quebeckers in Bill C-19, to point out what he believes to be flawed or incomplete and requiring improvement. That is what people need to know: When the opposition analyzes a bill, the goal is to improve it. Ultimately, it is about addressing the flaws. There were some in Bill C-19. I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain elements, especially the amendment that would exempt meaderies and apple cideries from paying the excise tax on alcohol. The Bloc Québécois presented this amendment and invited witnesses to testify before the Standing Committee on Finance about a small clause in a big bill because Bloc Québécois members listen to their constituents, to producers and artisans, and they want to improve bills to ensure they are successful. In this case, it was a win for the Bloc Québécois but, more importantly, a win for all apple cider and honey mead producers in Quebec and Canada. There are 50 meaderies in Canada, half of which are in Quebec. There is one in my riding, called Miel Nature, led by Ali Agougou, a Quebecker—

318 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jun/6/22 12:21:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders, the government can use time allocation, but there is a difference between using it and abusing it. Bill C-19 is not a small inconsequential bill. It is over 430 pages long and makes a lot of changes to existing legislation. We need some time to study it. We know that the Standing Committee on Finance was rushed. We had time to present amendments, which were debated. They were good amendments. Were it not for the work of the committee, the bill could have been passed without any improvements, when that is the whole point of committee work. The Standing Committee on Finance worked extremely hard. I challenge any party in the House to say that the Bloc Québécois is filibustering. We have not filibustered in committee or in the House. On the contrary, we worked hard to improve Bill C-19, which is a massive bill that amends a number of important laws. I think it should be known that we did not have time to review it properly, even if there were 80 speeches on the subject. My question is quite simple. Does the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance not agree that we should have had more time to further improve this bill so that it would better respond to the needs of Canadians and businesses?

235 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

May/9/22 12:23:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I knew that this time allocation motion was coming, but I did not think it would be moved so soon. It is important for people to know that we have not yet even had five hours of debate on Bill C-19, which is a big bill with numerous measures. Many sectors have been calling us after seeing the budget. We need to debate this big, important bill, and five hours is not enough time. I am surprised because I think this demonstrates carelessness and contempt on the part of the government. The Liberals are saying that we have debated this long enough, and they are eager for the bill to be passed. We, too, are eager for it to pass, but debating bills is part of our job. I am therefore very surprised, and even appalled, that this motion was moved today when I was not expecting it until later. I think that is an exaggeration. I think the government is counting on its tacit agreement with the NDP to prevent meaningful and thorough debate, especially in the case of Bill C-19. This is not a small bill; it is 452 pages long and the Standing Committee on Finance has already begun its study. This is not a question, but I will say to my colleague that it is a bit discouraging to see that the leader continues to be contemptuous of the legislative work that we have to do here in the House.

249 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 58 - Apr/26/22

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Apr/26/22 4:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her beautiful speech. I know she cares about the most vulnerable people in our society.. I wanted to remind her that there is a large organization in Quebec called the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, which brings together all people aged 55 and over, and that means 500,000 people. The FADOQ has asked the government to increase old age security payments for people aged 65 and over. The current government plans to increase it for people aged 75 and over. Can my colleague explain whether she agrees with the need to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 and over? Why does she think there is absolutely no mention of this in the budget?

135 words

Apr/25/22 4:59:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Joliette has proposed countless solutions to curb tax avoidance. That fact that it is legal, in a G7 country like Canada, to hide money in tax havens to avoid paying taxes is a serious problem. It is being done in plain sight, for all to see. I therefore agree with my colleague that the government must listen to the recommendations made by my colleague from Joliette, who gave them a winning formula to put an end to tax havens.

84 words

Apr/25/22 4:57:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member knows my answer. We clearly know that the solution for supporting European countries is not to develop new pipelines to supply Europe. The war would likely be over before the pipelines could even be built. That is not a solution. Investing in carbon capture and storage is not a solution either. We really need to move into energy transition mode. We need to support the people of Saskatchewan so they can shift gears and develop an alternative, diversified economy that is not based solely on oil. I invite my colleague to listen up and make way for the energy and ecological transition.

108 words

All Topics

Apr/25/22 4:55:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. My speech seems to have angered him, and I am not really sure why. I can say one thing. I have been a manager before. If I am asked to organize long-term services and ensure that seniors are well taken care of in long-term care facilities, I know that there needs to be predictability. Planning, organizing and providing services requires predictability, and that means that funding needs to be recurring, not a one-shot deal. It takes planning and forecasting. I am not denying that the federal government gave money to the provinces to help them deal with challenges during the worst of the pandemic, but now the pandemic is winding down, and the provinces are calling for the funding they need to reorganize their top-notch services for the patients who need it.

148 words