House of Commons Hansard #378 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebeckers.

Topics

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Dominic LeBlanc Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for his support of this important project. As members know, we have prioritized reducing the reliance on diesel in rural and remote communities. This hydro fibre link would represent a very important step forward in providing renewable and affordable energy and high-speed Internet to many communities, and it would open up economic opportunities for those communities.

We have worked with the Inuit association. We have also worked with Premier Savikataaq and his government, and will continue to do so.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness misled the House and that this is not the first time he has done so. Today, he misled the House in response to a question from my colleague from Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill regarding ISIS fighters.

Under the Conservative government, charges were laid against three individuals in February 2015. They are Awso Peshdary, John McGuire and Khadar Khalib—

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. This seems to be a debate on the facts. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles knows, the Speaker does not get involved in such debates.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue on a point of order.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier Liberal Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, every member of the House has the right to speak in the official language of his or her choice. My colleague's criticism of my choice to speak in French infringes on my rights. What is more, this criticism came from a member who supported the cuts to francophone services made by the Harper and Doug Ford governments. I would ask that he apologize.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

That also seems to be a matter of debate.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable would like to add something on this point of order.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, we rarely answer questions from the government on this side of the House. However, I clearly remember the Prime Minister himself asked us to ask a question in English and in French. We simply asked the same from Liberal members.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

This also seems to be a matter of debate.

The member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix on a point of order.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue to apologize to the House. I stood up for Franco-Ontarians, and I do not need a lecture from the Liberals.

Northern AffairsOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

That also seems to be a matter of debate.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Affordable HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, January 31, 2019, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Saskatoon West, relating to the business of supply.

I remind hon. members of the rule that members are not permitted to pass between the mace and the Chair.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #987

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—TaxesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to order made Monday, February 4, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Carleton relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #988

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L’Érable has five minutes to conclude his remarks. Then there will be a five-minute period for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L’Érable.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on the opposition motion concerning a single tax return for all Quebeckers, who are the only ones to not have the option to file just one tax return per year.

I would like to come back to something that happened during question period. During question period, in an answer that the Prime Minister gave to one of my colleagues, we heard him say the following:

It is interesting that the Conservatives will not ask that same question in English that was just asked in French about giving to Quebec a single tax filing.

Then I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question. My colleague and national revenue critic asked the question in English and then I asked the question in French. I asked the government party whether it was possible to do the same thing that it was asking us to do, which was to answer in both languages so that all Canadians could understand it. It was that simple. If I offended the Minister of National Revenue, I apologize, as that was not my intention. I know that she has been working very hard to learn English. I think it is to the credit of all members of the House to want to learn both official languages. This is very important, and in fact I support several of my colleagues who are trying to learn French. I know that she is working very hard on this.

Since it is the Minister of Revenue’s birthday, I apologize if she was offended. That was not my intention. However, I would like the Prime Minister to avoid using the same kind of rhetoric and asking for questions in English or French to try to make us out to be the kind of people who say one thing in English and another in French, when that is completely false.

The Minister of National Revenue may well be celebrating her birthday today, but she is nevertheless completely out of touch with what Quebeckers want, with what the Premier of Quebec wants, with what the National Assembly wants, with what Conservative Party members want and with what the majority of Quebeckers want. They want people to fill out one single tax return every year.

Emotions are running high because an election campaign is just around the corner. I would like everyone opposite to take two minutes to think about this possibility. Do they think we can make Quebeckers' lives easier, yes or no? That is a very simple question. It would not be hard to do. Are they interested in starting talks with the Government of Quebec to find a solution and make a single tax return a reality for Quebeckers, yes or no?

Unfortunately, listening to the various answers and to the Prime Minister, it will not be possible. They have closed the door without any discussion. However, that was not always the case. Remember that, the first time the National Assembly discussed this through a unanimous motion, the first reaction from the Prime Minister was to mock the National Assembly, breaking into laughter after saying that the National Assembly had passed a unanimous motion.

It is still the Quebec National Assembly and they are still elected members. Another assembly must be respected. If the Prime Minister wants to speak with members of the National Assembly, he can get elected to it too. No problem. However, given his attitude since the debate, his attitude toward Quebec, his attitude on the issue of the supply ship Obelix, his attitude on electoral reform and his attitude about deficits that continue to accumulate and grow, I am not convinced that residents of any riding in Quebec would want such a Prime Minister.

The question is simple. If we set aside the debates and partisan statements and put a stop to this government's fearmongering about the thousands of jobs at Revenue Canada in Quebec, would it be possible to have a discussion at a more functional level that would encourage parliamentarians to work together to make it possible to create a single income tax return?

I would like to repeat one thing to all the people working at Revenue Canada in Quebec: no jobs will be lost. Those are just scare tactics used by the Liberals. They are fearmongering, although they are the ones who keep saying that the Conservatives are running fear campaigns. That is strange, but in this case I think that the attacks are coming mostly from the opposite side. No jobs will be lost if we do things right and if we do them in the best interests of Quebeckers, to make their lives easier.

Let's use the resources we have and rely on everyone’s experience and expertise to make this project possible. It seems to me that this is a good project, that it could be achieved together, with Quebec, to show once and for all that Ottawa is not afraid of Quebec and that, to the contrary, it wants to work with Quebeckers.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Steven MacKinnon Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to today's debate.

Between the Conservatives patting themselves on the back for getting the support of the Bloc Québécois, members from the regions of Quebec are taking their turn. This morning, the member for Chicoutimi said that, in his region, jobs were just a detail, that it was complicated and that it would all be sorted out. It is all unicorns and rainbows.

Public servants heard this for 10 years from the Harper Conservatives. They heard it about the Phoenix pay system, they heard it over and over about the draconian cuts, and they heard it about the national shipbuilding strategy. There was nothing for Lévis and the Davie shipyard. We heard it for 10 years.

Why does the member not stand up to his leader and his party to protect jobs in Mauricie, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and in the Outaouais? Why does he not stand up for Quebeckers' jobs?

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am doing at this very moment.

I am telling my colleague, who continues to repeat falsehoods or things that we did not say, that they are fearmongering. I will say it again. I am not going to stand up to my leader, I am going to stand beside him and my colleagues. On October 22, working together, we will give Quebeckers back a well-managed country. That is what will happen.

I can also reassure all CRA employees that we made a clear commitment that no jobs will be cut. Can we be any clearer? There will be no job losses.

There will be no job losses.

That holds true in English and in French. There will be no job losses. I believe that there will be no job losses. In fact, I am saying that a single tax return for Quebec will not result in job losses. Did I mention that there will be no job losses?

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is common sense. I think we need to make the members opposite see reason. Their response should be logical and intelligent.

I have a question for my colleague. Why are Liberal members, the government and the current Prime Minister categorically refusing to support this? They are saying no to Quebec, no to a single tax return, no to the National Assembly and no to the majority of elected representatives of all parties on this side of the House although one of those parties changed its mind a few times.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. Why are the Liberals saying no to a single tax return?

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is simple.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always had a centralizing mindset. It wants to control everything. The Prime Minister himself said as much in Saint-Hyacinthe in response to questions about this. He said that many provinces have a single tax return and that Quebec can too—as long as it is a single federal tax return. That is what he told the people of Saint-Hyacinthe. The cat is out of the bag.

Simply put, the Prime Minister does not trust Quebec. It is fine if he is the one running things, but it is not fine if Quebeckers are. The Liberals do not trust Quebec. They still see Quebeckers as a threat. We, in contrast, will work closely with the Government of Quebec to give Quebeckers a single tax return.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, hearing such things really makes my blood boil.

First of all, how can the member tell me there will be no job losses, when the Premier of Quebec is the first to say this would save $500 million? How are you going to save that money? You are going to save it because you are going to eliminate the jobs of all those people who work for the Canada Revenue Agency.

Second, there is a huge difference between Quebec's definition of revenue and Canada's definition of revenue. That is why there are two different tax returns. Quebeckers would lose certain benefits if they do not use the same definition as the federal government. The definition is not the same at the provincial level.

Frankly, it is ridiculous.