House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was colleague.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Sherbrooke (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016 December 14th, 2016

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House at third reading stage of Bill S-4. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone happy holidays.

I realize that I will be the second last person to speak in the House and that my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères will be the next and last speaker. He will have the honour of ending the debate. I would just like to extend my best wishes to the House.

We are not debating the most controversial bill. All parties worked together making it possible for the government to move the bill quickly through all stages in the House, including study by committee. All parties collaborated to ensure that everything went smoothly.

Naturally, the government used the excuse that without royal assent and diplomatic notification before December 31, the convention with Taiwan could not go into effect on January 1, and if it was not in effect on January 1, 2017, we would have to wait until January 1, 2018.

It goes without saying that we have been working together in order to advance this file, even though we have some reservations about tax conventions overall. In this case, the new concerns with respect to Taiwan are not problematic, nor is the use of the OECD model to update the agreement with Israel, which was signed in 1975. There is also a technical update for the Hong Kong agreement, which clarifies the status of Hong Kong as a territory of China.

It goes without saying that we support the bill and that we are letting the government proceed. The Governor General will thus be able to sign it soon, give royal assent and, a few days later, notify Taiwan that the convention has been ratified and that it can take effect on January 1. We will be monitoring this file during the holidays.

During those proceedings, I gave a very serious yet broad overview of tax conventions that can be problematic in some instances. That is why, during my speech at second reading, I encouraged the government to keep a closer eye on our 92 and soon to be 93 tax conventions with 93 nations in the world, in order to ensure that these conventions are used properly and for the right reasons and that they do not facilitate tax evasion, as is the case in Barbados.

The title of Bill S-4 mentions combatting tax evasion. However, we know that in some situations tax conventions to avoid double taxation facilitate tax evasion because the businesses can claim resident status if they are sufficiently set up in the respective country and then claim the right to be taxed only once, which means, in the case of Barbados, to be taxed in Barbados only. When those businesses bring their money back here to Canada, they do not have to pay any additional tax since they already paid the taxes that they owe. Barbados has a low tax rate of 0.5% to 2.25%, if memory serves me correctly, and in that case, a tax convention is totally unacceptable.

However, it goes without saying that this sort of convention would work well in the case of Taiwan or Israel because they have tax rates similar to those in Canada. We do not see a problem with this. However, I would like to remind the government of the importance of having a formal mechanism for the periodic review of these conventions. This would ensure that the countries with which we have conventions continue to have tax rates similar to ours and that we are not creating an even bigger problem and acting contrary to the spirit of these conventions by not seeking to prevent tax evasion.

I wanted to mention that again in this debate at third reading and commend the government for passing this bill, which we hope will come into effect on January 1, if all goes well.

I would like to say happy holidays to all my colleagues, yourself included, Madam Speaker. I hope to see everyone back here in good health in 2017 so that we can continue the important work that we do in the House and that we will continue to do in co-operation with all parties. We will see everyone in 2017.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 December 14th, 2016

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his work on this file. I also want to wish him all the best for the holidays.

My colleague touched on something very important, the fact that the Liberals, including the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, stood up at least once in the house, at report stage, to vote against my colleague's proposed amendments. We proposed similar amendments to eliminate clauses in division 5 on consumer protection regarding banks.

However, the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, as they did in committee, rose in the House one after the other to vote against the amendments to withdraw this part of the bill. Today, they woke up and told us that we were right to want to withdraw this part of the bill, when they already had the chance to do so.

Can my colleague tell me where the Liberals from Quebec were when they had the chance to vote in favour of our amendments to withdraw this division from the bill?

Canada Revenue Agency December 14th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, despite the government's grand promises and its claims to want to tackle tax evasion, we learned that the company that is renting office space to the Canada Revenue Agency is guilty of tax evasion.

It makes no sense for this so-called progressive government to say that it wants to combat tax evasion and then turn around and sign public contracts with companies linked to tax havens.

Does the Minister of National Revenue believe it is acceptable that her own department is doing business with those companies and will she cancel that contract? If she does not cancel the contract, that will be a clear message that she is turning a blind eye to tax evasion.

When will that outrageous contract be cancelled?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act December 13th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to mention to her that the NDP will be supporting this bill. I hope she will be pleased.

I would also like to ask her whether the government is doing anything to foster trade. Having as many free trade agreements as possible is a good thing. However, our businesses sometimes face technological or technical barriers that may limit their ability to export.

Is the government being proactive and investing in exporting to ensure that it is easier for our businesses to export and to do business around the world? That is the role of free trade agreements, but there are other barriers to exporting besides tariffs and taxes.

Is the government also working on supporting exporting and trade in order to help our businesses export their goods around the world?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act December 13th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am pleased to inform him that the NDP will support this trade agreement, in part because it does not contain a parallel legal system for investor-state dispute resolution.

Can my colleague tell us more about that? Why is there no such mechanism in this agreement even though it is in the agreement with Europe? Why are these two agreements different in this respect?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act December 13th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in this debate.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are in the habit of fully supporting every economic and trade agreement without question, while we are always being accused of not supporting any of them. I think it would be fair to consider why they seem to fully support agreements without even having seen the text of those agreements.

Does my colleague think that his party is irresponsible in that regard because the Conservatives support trade agreements without having even seen the text? Can he comment on that and tell the House whether he thinks that this is a responsible way of dealing with free trade agreements?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act December 13th, 2016

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Could my colleague elaborate on the geopolitical impact that the signing, ratification, and implementation of the free trade agreement with Ukraine would have on that part of the world?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act December 13th, 2016

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extraordinary work on this international trade file.

I hope that the Minister of International Trade's staff is busy revising her little book of prepared answers and that they will delete the line where it asks the NDP when it will finally support a free trade agreement, because today it is supporting one. I look forward to her not repeating that statement when she answers questions.

In any event, can my colleague tell us why this time the NDP can support the agreement we are debating today? What is the difference between the agreement with Europe and the one with Ukraine? How is it that today the government is fortunate, at least I hope they think so, to have our support for this agreement?

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement December 12th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. I also want to take this opportunity to say hello to her relatives who live in Sherbrooke.

The member raises a very important issue, one that has also been raised by several municipalities. European companies will have more rights when it comes to participating in public contracts and local procurement.

This is a serious concern that has been raised by several people, one that could have a real impact. We often hear about waste water management, drinking water, and waterworks as examples. European companies could take control of our water management systems. Concerns over that issue are genuine and significant.

As I said in my speech, and I think we have discussed in the House recently, governments are creating procurement policies with a certain percentage of local content. This means that those European companies, once again under investor-state systems—

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement December 12th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

He says that there are other international treaties that govern or impose basic standards on certain issues, and that they generally make a lot of sense. For example, it might be a question of minimum safety standards and respecting certain rights.

However, in this case, private companies might say that the government is not acting appropriately from their point of view, that of a multinational corporation, and not from the point of view of a multinational framework whose members agree on all the minimum standards. Instead, we are talking about companies who are subjectively saying that the government is taking measures that are hurting them and their profits, and that it must change its approach or compensate them for it.

I do not think that we can compare these two situations. In some cases, this is truly a multinational agreement and every national government agrees on certain things, which obviously must be respected when an agreement is signed.

I do not think that we can compare that to the investor-state system in this case.