Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we are here to talk about Bill C-241, which was introduced by my hon. colleague from Essex. This bill amends the Income Tax Act to allow tradespeople and apprentices to deduct travel-related expenses from their income.

As my hon. colleague, the member for Joliette, pointed out, we support this bill. It can be described as a common sense bill, because it directly addresses the issue of fairness. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of it.

Under this legislation, tradespeople can deduct travel expenses:

where the taxpayer was employed as a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in a construction activity at a job site that was located at least 120 km away from their ordinary place of residence, amounts expended by the taxpayer in the year for travelling to and from the job site, if the taxpayer:

(i) was required under the contract of employment to pay those expenses,

(ii) did not receive an allowance in respect of those expenses that is not included in computing the taxpayer’s income for the year, and

(iii) does not claim those expenses as an income deduction or a tax credit for the year under any other provision of this Act;

Let us talk a bit about the construction industry. It is a very important sector in Quebec, both for its contribution to the economy and for its value added. Houses and buildings can be built from scratch. Without this industry, we would not have our magnificent House of Commons, for example. In 2019, $53 billion was invested in the construction industry and 264,000 direct jobs were created on average every month. In Quebec alone, one in 20 jobs are in this sector, and thousands of jobs in other sectors are linked to the construction industry.

This bill is being introduced in a particular economic context marked by a labour shortage and inflation. Inflation is now Quebeckers' main concern. It affects the cost of housing, staple foods and, of course, gas.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed a number of measures to give some relief to workers struggling with the rising cost of gas. In this very specific context, Bill C‑241 would help tradespeople do their jobs and be compensated for these expenses and the rising cost of gas, which is quite fair. If they travel for work and agree to take on a contract far from where they live, it just makes sense that they be reimbursed for the expenses they incur on the job.

Inflation has multiple causes, one of which was government spending during the pandemic. This spending was necessary and we supported it, but it may be partially responsible for today's inflation. In addition, the shortages of essential equipment created backlogs in a number of industries. Supply chain issues, the unfortunate war in Ukraine and the labour shortage also contributed to the significant inflation problems.

The labour shortage is boosting wages, but it is also creating a problem in the construction industry. It is a vicious circle. There is a shortage of workers for job sites. The construction industry cannot find people to take on jobs that are so important to our economy.

We think that this bill could help tradespeople do their jobs and accept contracts far from home, which is essential for many remote communities.

At the same time, tradespeople are forced to turn down contracts far from home because they would have to spend hundreds of dollars just to get to work. It is clear that, in many cases, they are forced to turn down these contracts. They are often forced to reluctantly apply for EI because they cannot find a contract near their home and cannot see themselves spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on gas just to get to work, given the exorbitant price of gas today.

Ultimately, this bill will not only help address the labour shortage in this industry, but it will also enable people to accept new contracts, which could reduce the EI benefit envelope. These are significant numbers. For example, the government could save $347 million in EI benefits thanks to this bill.

We believe that this bill will be able to constructively and concretely deal with economic issues such as gas price inflation and labour shortages.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed several solutions to the labour shortage. More specifically, with regard to immigration control, we have asked for a transfer of the temporary foreign worker program to Quebec. Who better than Quebec to know what it needs?

We also proposed greater integration of older, more experienced workers.

We also suggest supporting technologies designed to increase flexibility for the workforce. We know that is one solution. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, technologies that make work more flexible are one of the most important solutions to the labour shortage. Another solution is to eliminate entry barriers for employees. One entry barrier is the cost of accessing these contracts.

That brings us back to this bill. If we make it possible for workers in the construction industry to accept these contracts without the entry barrier of the cost of travelling to the job site, then we are helping to solve the serious labour shortage problem.

We also proposed solutions to inflation. They do not necessarily target inflation directly, since the Bank of Canada, which is independent, is doing that already. Our solutions seek to protect the people who are struggling because of inflation. We proposed help for dealing with the housing shortage. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is actively working on that. We proposed help for families and individuals who are having difficulty because of inflation.

What really matters, as I said, is finding a way to make the labour market more flexible by letting more workers in and giving workers who are already in the market access to jobs or contracts. As everyone knows, we want greater equity, but we also want to tackle labour shortages for an industry that really needs workers, the construction industry, which is especially important in Quebec.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, if, and only if, the Liberal government has good economists, then it did a cost-benefit benefit analysis of its investments, whether in capture and storage or in the oil industry through its Crown corporations. What about the cost of inaction and the consequences of climate change, which are quantifiable and priced in real money?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the overheated housing market does differ from one city to the next. We can all agree that Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and the regions of Quebec do not all have the same problems.

Using a single pan-Canadian measure to address all of the country's challenges is therefore a bad idea. Additionally, the housing problem is caused by a lack of supply, since the occupancy rate is very high. Providing support measures to a segment of the population that is already able to save for a home, which is what the proposed TFSA does, will ultimately stimulate even more demand. It is counterproductive.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy conversing with my hon. colleague. His question really ties in to my previous answer.

The federal government always has to impose conditions, even for a system Quebec already has. It is extremely paternalistic, as the member just said. When we want our money back for what we consider to be our needs, the federal government imposes conditions.

The federal government should not be constantly meddling in what the provinces decide to do. Provinces have the right to make their own decisions about certain programs and where their money should be spent. Provinces are different, and their priorities are different.

Why not give the provinces, especially Quebec, a little more decision-making power? As we all know, Quebec is another country and one of the two solitudes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question, which allows me to mention that, unfortunately, there are not enough child care spaces.

This system is fundamental. It was introduced by the Parti Québécois, which is a sovereignist party. Everyone knows that all the positive measures in Quebec are driven by sovereignist parties.

Not only are there not enough child care spaces, but it is a provincial system. The federal government should not interfere. We are tired of seeing the federal government interfere in everything that falls under provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, even though the Bloc is in favour of the principle of the bill, many of the measures described in Bill C‑19 could do with being fleshed out.

That is what we will do in committee. My colleague, the member for Joliette, will make sure that every measure in the bill is examined and scrutinized so it can be passed with due diligence. Even though we support the bill in principle, we will still take the time to improve it in committee.

This bill includes several measures we feel are reasonable, emergency measures that, in all sincerity, I think are pretty good. Let us start with the extension of pandemic-related measures. We are in favour of this idea and always have been. Even now, many businesses need economic support to weather the pandemic. I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois has always supported targeted assistance.

We want businesses to be supported. As we know, the pandemic disrupted the various sectors of the economy in different ways. While some sectors are coping well, other sectors, such as tourism and hospitality, are still struggling. People have changed their habits and are not going back to the theatre, the movies or restaurants. It is great to be able to help certain sectors that have been especially hard hit by the pandemic.

The second urgent measure is the extension, by five weeks, of employment insurance for seasonal workers. Again, we commend this measure. The third urgent measure is the one‑time immediate payment of $2 billion through the Canada health transfer, in addition to $750 million for public transit.

Let us come back to the extension of pandemic-related financial supports. We are in favour of well targeted assistance. We agree in principle with this measure. I just want to point out that businesses have been approaching us for months. We contacted the government and wrote letters to the minister, but there is nothing in the short term to help the businesses affected by the semiconductor shortage. It is bad.

Businesses are being forced to lay off workers or shut down completely because they are missing an essential component needed for their products to function properly. I am talking about semiconductors. Even though I have asked the question several times in the House, there is still nothing to help these businesses in the short and medium terms. There may be a line or two in the budget about plans to potentially have this technology in Quebec or Canada some day. However, for now, there is nothing tangible; in fact, there is nothing at all for these businesses that are losing employees, losing jobs, losing expertise and even facing the risk of bankruptcy. This is unacceptable at this point in time.

The five-week extension of EI benefits for seasonal workers is all well and good, but I think many of my colleagues would agree that employment insurance needs to be completely overhauled. We would not have needed financial assistance measures during the pandemic if our employment insurance system were working properly. This is still not the case, and it is a real problem. One of my colleagues is working very hard on this issue and has made all kinds of proposals, but we all agree that the EI system is completely broken. The system is designed to ensure that people get the least amount of benefits possible, despite having paid into the system. It is just wrong that the system is managed by the federal government, when it is our money. It is unacceptable that it is so dysfunctional, when we have needed additional financial supports for nearly two and a half years. EI reform is critical, and it must be done now.

Lastly, the third measure that is urgent and warrants discussion today is the immediate one-time payment of $2 billion in Canada health transfers. We have been waiting and asking for this for quite some time now. Our health care system is suffocating. We have the know-how, but we need the money and the Canada health transfers with no strings attached right now.

We obtained $2 billion through the Canada health transfer with Bill C-19. However, that is our money. Why must we always beg for our own money?

Not only that, but it is also tied to $750 million to support public transportation. That is a good thing because public transportation took a big hit during the pandemic. Ridership on most public transit systems is very low. As I mentioned, low ridership is due to the fact that people have changed their habits and are still afraid of the virus, which continues to spread.

We need to upgrade this infrastructure and provide new options. More money is needed to support public transportation. I repeat that this money belongs to us and there should be absolutely no strings attached to it. It is not right that our money has strings attached to it.

We will ensure that the money that will be put to good use by the various provinces and Quebec will not have strings attached.

I will now digress for a moment to talk about the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have the pleasure of serving.

As we have been examining the public accounts in recent months, we discovered that there was information on how different departments provide funding or make expenditures. We know who they fund, where that funding goes and how much is being given. Departments are subject to certain accounting standards. The average person can see how any amount over $100,000 has been spent, where it was spent and how much was spent.

We recently discovered something that is quite significant. Crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada, are not subject to these same accounting rules. That means that citizens will not be able to see how their money is being spent, for expenditures over $100,000, by Crown corporations, because these corporations are subject to IFRS. IFRS are internationally recognized standards, but they are used by the private sector and should not apply to the government. The public must have the information they need to see how expenditures over $100,000 are spent, who received the money, in what province and what it was used for.

Between 20% and 30% of all government spending goes through Crown corporations. That means it is impossible to know how much money is being handed over. However, we hear a lot about equalization. In the case of equalization, it is easier to have an approximate idea of how much is given and how much is received. There is a lot of emphasis on that, yet we do not know how much we receive in total in terms of government spending because the Crown corporations make it impossible know how much each province in Canada receives, which is unacceptable.

Until we know how much we are receiving, we demand that the transfers, our money, be given to us without conditions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Today we are debating Bill C‑19, a massive, 500-page bill that contains a little of everything. This bill could be considered an omnibus bill. However, it does not contain all of the measures from the budget statement. We expect to see another bill introduced in the coming weeks.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, although a number of measures could have been, and would benefit, from being studied more carefully. Allow me to explain.

Although we agree on the principle of the bill, we will nevertheless wait to study all of its measures carefully in committee. We certainly will not agree to pass this bill so that we can finish far too early after debating it for just a few hours.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, May 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, Terrebonne is a magnificent riding, and I hope you will visit us very soon.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. We agree in principle with several of the measures proposed in Bill C-19. However, I have an important question to ask her.

On March 4, we sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the semiconductor shortage. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 contains no measures to address this serious shortage affecting many of our businesses. What we are seeing is a loss of expertise and jobs, and a number of businesses might have to declare bankruptcy or have already done so.

What do the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister plan do about this?

[The Budget, April 25th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my esteemed colleague for making a real effort to speak in French. I encourage her to continue speaking French in the House because the French language is very important in Canada.

I completely agree with her. I think it is quite unfortunate that the government is not increasing the Canada health transfers. For once, the provinces all agree, which is quite rare. The government must increase these health transfers, and we are calling for the transfers to be increased to 35%, which is not even the level of funding that would be required to address all of the problems on the horizon in health care.

Our population is aging, which makes this increase absolutely necessary. All professional associations in Quebec and all of the provincial governments agree that the federal government must increase the Canada health transfers.

[The Budget, April 25th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

My response will be brief. No, I do not think that carbon capture and storage is the solution. The problem is not just emissions, but production as well.

We want to halt production. We do not want as much oil to be produced in the coming decades, so that demand decreases and our children and grandchildren can have a future without oil and gas.

Carbon capture and storage only rewards increased production. It is not the solution.