House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 28% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 1st, 2018
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, but she has left me a little confused about a fundamental issue in this debate.
My colleague seems to have intentionally chosen not to use the term “climate change”. Instead, she used the term “weather” to describe what is happening.
My question is simple. Does my colleague believe in climate change?
Business of Supply May 1st, 2018
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. There are still many doubts about the Government of Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The formal commitments made by the Government of Canada when it signed international documents in Paris have not changed; the Conservatives made the same ones. My question is this: will there be a report on what we have achieved in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change plan on meeting these targets by the time the agreements come to term?
Madam Speaker, my colleague has done a little more research on this and so I would like to ask her the following question. Last week, a tobacco company representative whose name I shall not mention appeared before a parliamentary committee. Although we were discussing another matter, he decided to lecture us about plain packaging. He said it makes no difference because every pack of cigars or cigarettes is already out of sight in convenience stores and other points of sale.
How would the member respond to that argument? It seems somewhat naive to think that just because they are out of sight, school children do not talk about or see these packages that youth might find attractive. This argument put forward by representatives of the tobacco industry seems rather naive. It could even be argued that they are being willfully blind.
Taxation April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, even a Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee has called for this. One of the only people in the entire world who is hesitant is the Prime Minister of Canada. That is unbelievable, more so because the issue is not that complicated. It is simply a matter of making the rules the same for everyone. Quebec realized this a long time ago, and Netflix announced that it will be charging QST.
Will the government finally wake up and force web giants to pay GST?
Taxation April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, with the G7 summit just around the corner, Canada continues to lag behind the rest of the group, and the government still has no plan to force multinationals like Netflix to charge GST—
Tobacco Act April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I am curious to know if this debate has included any discussion of how the revenue from excise taxes is used in Canada, which is among the worst on that score. Tobacco manufacturers pay billions in excise taxes, and that money could be spent on prevention and education about the harmful effects of tobacco use. Currently, the federal government uses only a tiny fraction of the excise tax revenue for education. It is actually the provinces that are doing more in terms of education and advertising to tell people about the harmful effects of tobacco.
Is that part of the debate? Does my colleague think that is something we should consider in addition to what is in today's bill?
Foreign Affairs April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has finally raised his concerns with the King of Saudi Arabia regarding the imprisonment of Raif Badawi. I thank him for that.
However, a lot of work remains to be done before Mr. Badawi can finally return to his family in Sherbrooke. Offering him honorary citizenship could provide the government with new diplomatic levers to secure his release. Since his imprisonment, Mr. Badawi has been awarded important prizes, recognitions, and distinctions and has received support from around the world. It is time for Canada to do its part.
Will the government grant Mr. Badawi honorary citizenship?
Taxation April 25th, 2018
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we get the same response all too often from this government.
As soon as the Liberals find themselves in an unpleasant situation, and that is putting it mildly, as soon as their mismanagement is exposed, they react. That is when they suddenly decide to create a panel of experts, because a problem needs solving. However, the problem needs to be uncovered by the public, the opposition or the media, otherwise the government does nothing and lets things go.
If no one had spoken up and said that their tax credit had been denied, even though they had been getting it for years, if we had not found out that so many people were experiencing the same thing, the government never would have done anything. It would have eliminated the tax credits for people with disabilities, for people with type 1 diabetes. It would have slipped under the radar.
Why does the government always wait until it finds itself in some sort of appalling situation before doing anything and taking action?
Taxation April 25th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of National Revenue last fall about the disability tax credit fiasco, which had a major impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Since I have only four minutes, I would like to briefly remind the House of what happened.
Overnight, the number of people with type 1 diabetes being denied the tax credit by the Canada Revenue Agency inexplicably began to soar. Such a thing had never been seen before. A person with type 1 diabetes who had never had any trouble getting the disability tax credit before was suddenly being turned down by the CRA on the pretext that they no longer met the criteria.
That could happen in one or two exceptional cases. Last fall, however, an astounding number of people started contacting members on both sides of the House to complain about this situation, which was reaching unprecedented levels. The minister kept insisting that there had been no change in the criteria and that there was no reason to worry, even though the reality on the ground was that a staggering number of people were being denied the tax credit.
Eventually, the minister was forced to apologize, because concrete evidence, in the form of CRA emails, proved that an internal memo had been sent to agents telling them to review disability tax credit applications more closely, especially those from people with type 1 diabetes. She had to apologize because the facts were checked by the media and the opposition, who finally uncovered the truth. If the minister had to apologize, it is because something had in fact changed. This shows that she did a poor job of managing this file, to say the least. She confused everyone, as did the public servants who appeared before the committee. One message had been sent to the agents on the front lines, while the government was sending a completely different message.
As a follow-up, I would like to ask the government to tell us how many people were affected by this incredible fiasco. How many people suffering from type 1 diabetes in Canada were affected and became ineligible for the tax credit overnight? We hope that they won their case with the Canada Revenue Agency and that they have finally received their tax credit. There have been changes at the agency and we hope that other changes will be made in order to clarify the rules.
How many people were affected by the fiasco created by the Minister of National Revenue?
Oceans Act April 25th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
My question does not relate to the meaning of the bill, so I do not want to hear a response on the substance of the bill. My question has to do with the time allocation motion.
Without saying who is and is not here in the House, I can see that the minister is surrounded by some MPs who were here during the previous Parliament, when the Conservatives made good use of time allocation motions, which they moved nearly every day. These members always rose to speak out against these Conservative time allocation motions.
Today, the tables have turned. These same members are still here, but they remain silent. They are no longer critical of time allocation motions.
What changed between those days before 2015, when they were criticizing time allocation motions every day, and today, when then have nothing to say so they sit and listen?