House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebeckers.

Last in Parliament April 2025, as Bloc MP for La Prairie (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2025, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act October 28th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, when the Constitution was created in 1867, fiscal responsibilities were assigned to each government. Oddly enough, the provinces and Quebec got income tax. One might reasonably think that the Fathers of Confederation were good to Quebec and the other provinces, but no, because income tax did not exist at the time. Neither the provinces nor the federal government collected income tax. That was given to the provinces and they were told to figure it out. The first province to start working on that was British Columbia. It started taxing income, and that worked.

When the First World War broke out, the federal government decided it was time it took charge of that, because it was working. The provinces argued that it was written in the Constitution that it was a provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. It is also written in the Constitution that the federal government can take public money, regardless of how it is taxed. It was written at the bottom of one page, so the government decided to use it.

The First World War ended, the provinces asked that that responsibility be returned to them and they were told “no”. The Second World War arrived. The government said that it would finance the war effort with taxes. After that, we had the difficult coexistence of the provincial and Quebec governments and the federal government, which did not want to give up this responsibility. The provinces and Quebec found the idea to be appealing. The coexistence led to agreements being signed with all provinces except Quebec and Ontario. Then Ontario gave in and Quebec was the only province to stand its ground and say that it would retain control over this money.

In 1953, Maurice Duplessis launched the Tremblay Commission. He said that he would look at the issue and see what came of it. The Tremblay Commission submitted its report in 1956. It found that having the province retain control of taxes was such a good idea that Quebec established and retained control of Quebec income taxes. It was a victory for Quebec. The other provinces were quite disappointed that they did not do the same thing. Quebeckers were rather wily and it served them well.

There are currently two tax returns and two tax systems. People started to question why there was not a single tax collector even if there were two tax systems. We all realized that that was not a crazy idea. We knew that there would be a battle between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. We wondered who would be the one tax collector, if there was one. Quebeckers had the answer.

On May 15, 2018, a motion was tabled in the Quebec National Assembly. I know, because I was the one who tabled it. I am the poor guy who tabled it. At the time, there was a Liberal government facing me. No one would call Philippe Couillard a modern-day patriot. I was sure that his government would buckle and refuse to support us. However, I could see it in his eyes that Carlos Leitão was on board. They said yes. It passed unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly. We then did a survey, and 65% of Quebeckers said that Quebec should collect the taxes, while 22% said that that responsibility should fall to Canada.

We are listening to the majority of Quebeckers who are saying that Quebec should be the one collecting taxes. We know that started with the GST and the QST and it worked. It was great. The federal government did not really talk about collecting GST in Quebec. It wants nothing to do with it. Quebec does a great job of that. It is more efficient than the federal government.

When it comes to economies of scale, my colleague from Orléans is off the mark. It has been proven that the QST is more effective when it is collected with the GST, regardless of what my colleague said.

Why have a single income tax return? My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was saying that we no longer have to use papyrus, quills and ink to fill out our tax return. That is obvious.

Were he more curious, he would know that there is in fact a literature review. Economists such as François Vaillancourt did thorough research to find out how much more time it took to fill out two tax returns. Mr. Vaillancourt conducted studies. It is not complicated. It is 10% more work for individuals and 15% more work for businesses. That is all in the report by IRAI, the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, which, last year, conducted the only empirical study on the benefits of filling in a single tax return. It is worth reading. It points to savings of $39 million for individuals who have someone else fill out their tax forms. Those who fill out their own spend 10% less time.

For businesses, this will reduce their costs by 15%, or $99 million.

Let's now talk about duplication. There are people in Quebec City and Ottawa who do the same thing, which is perfectly normal because that is how it is done. Now, someone in Ottawa is tapped on the shoulder and told to stop because there is already a guy in Quebec City doing that job. This will save $287 million. Everyone should read the IRAI report, which is comprehensive, explicit and scientific and explains it all. A single tax return will result in $425 million in savings.

We have heard that if this responsibility is handed over to Quebec City, other countries that have signed tax collection agreements with Ottawa will say they do not want to do business with Quebec. Come on. Those countries sign agreements with the federal government in order to obtain tax information that will help them combat tax evasion. The United States will not turn around and say it wants nothing to do with the Quebec government, because it will not want to have a tax haven just north of the border. It will seek to share that information, which I applaud, and all of those agreements will be confirmed in that manner, one after the other. That will not be a problem.

The Minister of National Revenue said that the Canada Revenue Agency employs 5,300 people in Quebec to handle tax returns. In order to collect and manage the federal government's taxes, Quebec will need 2,332 new employees. This is not rocket science, and it does not take an honorary degree to understand that compared with the 5,300 federal employees, 2,332 will be needed to do roughly the same work, but on behalf of the Government of Quebec.

What about the remaining 2,000 or 3,000 jobs? Canada's public service is aging and losing 3% to 4% of its employees every year through attrition as people retire. This public service claims to have a shortage of workers. I assume the remaining CRA workers will find jobs elsewhere in the public service.

Let us talk about tax evasion. Obviously, analyzing tax evasion by major corporations is not a simple task. It almost needs to be done by tax experts. However, there are many different types of tax evasion and jobs that can be done in this area. Furthermore, this work pays for itself. In fact, the best investment that the government can make is to assign an employee to combatting tax evasion. This employee will bring in much more money than the government spends on their salary. Once again, it does not take an honorary degree to understand this.

The member for Orléans said that tax administration would be less consistent across Canada and that that would be terrible. Well, we do not want that anyway. We are a nation separate from the Canadian nation, and we do not want to be consistent. Our needs, our language, our culture and our economy are all different. We do not want to be consistent with all of the Canadian provinces. That is not our goal. I would tell the member for Orléans that there is no point forcing us to be consistent, because that will not work for us. We do not want to be consistent. That is not hard to understand.

The federal government's next argument is that it will not have the information it needs and that it will not be able to operate without this information. However, Revenu Québec collects much more information than the Canada Revenue Agency. Quebec has more programs, not because it is better, but because it is different and therefore needs more information. Furthermore, Revenu Québec records are used to calculate child support, so if the information had to go to Ottawa, there would be no more child support.

It is not hard to tell the federal government that we will give it all the information we have, and we have more than it has, so it can continue to work the way it wants. It is win-win.

If having one entity collect taxes on behalf of two tax systems can save $425 million, imagine if we had just one tax system. If that were the case, the savings would not be in the millions of dollars, it would be in the billions. However, for that to happen, we would have to achieve independence.

COVID-19 Emergency Response October 26th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this with the government since the pandemic hit. It was agreed that businesses need help with their fixed costs. When did we agree to put that in the motion? On April 11. That was over six months ago. After threats of an election, the Liberals are telling us that they are finally going to help businesses. SMEs have been waiting for six months.

How many bankruptcies have occurred because of their inaction?

COVID-19 Emergency Response October 26th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, five million Quebeckers found themselves in red zones, with the resulting business closures. The next day, the Quebec government announced financial assistance to businesses to pay for fixed costs.

The response from this government has been non-existent. It has been a month, and we are still waiting for help from the government. Today, the Quebec government will announce that the confinement will continue. It is in the second month of managing the pandemic; this Liberal government did not even get involved in the first.

When will SMEs be offered assistance? This is important.

Public Services and Procurement October 22nd, 2020

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Liberals are using COVID-19 to line their friends' pockets.

When there was a ventilator shortage during the first wave, the Liberals wanted to get Frank Baylis to make some, but they knew that would look bad. The guy was a Liberal MP just last year. He is a buddy of theirs.

No, they did not give the money directly to their buddy Frank. Even they thought that would be wrong, so instead, they gave $237 million to FTI, a shell corporation created just seven days earlier.

The problem is that FTI does not make ventilators, so—surprise, surprise—it hired Frank as a contractor. What a bunch they are.

Come on. How stupid do they think we are?

COVID-19 Emergency Response October 21st, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has had enough of the corruption. It is as simple as that.

The Liberals do not want to call an election for the sake of SMEs. On the contrary, they are ready to sacrifice SMEs to trigger an election. They do not want to call an election for health transfers during a pandemic. No. They do not want to call an election for the sake of financial support for seniors either. They do not want to call an election for the sake of the economy, the environment or supply management. They want to call an election to cover up a Liberal scandal in which they are taking taxpayers' money and giving it to Liberal friends.

Will they finally understand that the priority is the pandemic and not their friends?

COVID-19 Emergency Response October 21st, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to make today's vote on WE Charity a confidence vote. It is the same government that told us earlier that next week it will introduce legislation to support businesses. When we talk about support for businesses we are talking about wage subsidies, rent subsidies and support for companies in red zones.

What exactly are they telling us? Either we stop talking about Liberal scandals or they will forget about businesses. Essentially, we are being blackmailed.

Who do they think they are to be holding businesses hostage?

Ethics October 19th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to create a committee to study $300 billion in COVID-related spending. We think that is a fine idea and have no objection.

However, they offered $912 million to an organization that took off as soon as it lost the contract. We are entitled to ask questions about that. We can do both at the same time.

Rather than threaten opposition parties, how about the Liberals just agree to creating a committee that will shed light on WE Charity?

Ethics October 19th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the government is so intent on covering up the We Charity scandal that it would let the government fall if we were to vote on having a special committee that would shed light on this issue.

In the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of a second wave, it is telling the opposition that it will trigger an election because it wants us to stop talking about We Charity. This summer, the Liberals shut down Parliament so we would stop talking about We Charity. Today, they are threatening to trigger an election because they do not want to talk about We Charity. That is very worrisome.

My question is simple. What do they have to hide?

Ethics October 8th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the National Post reported that a wealthy businessman from Toronto, Wei Wei, was arrested on charges of firearms possession and operating an illegal casino. Wei Wei met with the Prime Minister on May 16, 2016, with the founder of the Wealth One Bank. Three days later, he met him again. He meets with him almost as often as he meets with the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister discussed trade relations between China and Canada.

My question is simple. How many of these meetings between the Prime Minister and wealthy investors from Toronto's Chinese community have proven beneficial to the Liberal Party?

Ethics October 8th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, when I asked my question yesterday, before I even finished saying the word “machine gun”, the Prime Minister immediately stood up and started talking about political party financing. The links people make in their heads between different ideas can be odd, at times.

Then I simply asked him if he knew Wei Wei, a criminal arrested in Toronto. He immediately started talking about the Liberal Party's financing. That is when I realized that Wei Wei must be important to the Liberal Party.

My question is simple. Is it because Wei Wei and his gang stopped giving money to the Liberal Party that the Liberals asked for the wage subsidy?