Sylvie Boucher

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

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

Indeed, I could speak at length about women living in poverty because I was poor at one point.

This bill brings into focus the situation of a segment of the population that is already struggling. The bill never refers to these people and that bothers me. We have heard some fine speeches. However, as I already said, will repeat, and will continue to say, it is what the Liberals have left unsaid that frightens me.

They never once mention women living in poverty or single women with children who struggle day after day. I know what that means because I struggled my entire life. I was a single parent when I was 28 years old and now I am a member of Parliament.

I am so proud to stand with the Conservatives for the simple reason that I have come to understand something: when you struggle in life, you end up succeeding; but if you rely on promises that are not kept, like those of the Liberals, you can go on being poor for a long time, because those promises are just empty words.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I will be honest, this is not only about the Conservatives.

The hon. member might be under the impression here in the House that it is just the Conservatives who are against this bill. However, when we go around some of the poorer ridings, we see that people do not understand what the Liberal government is trying to accomplish with this because the money is needed now, not 40 years from now.

I am glad to know that my colleague across the way would have liked the Conservatives to do something. Unlike the hon. member, we think that makes a lot of sense. The Liberals do not believe in Canadians, but I do. I believe that Canadians are the only ones who can say what they want to do with their money, but the Liberals do not believe that because they always think they are above everyone else.

As the saying goes, when the Liberals stand up, the good Lord rests. I am sorry, but when the Liberals stand up, I sit down because I do not believe a word they say.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak once again to Bill C-26, which seeks to expand the Canada pension plan.

We have always known that the Liberals do not listen to anyone except their cronies. Although they like to stand up and tell us that they are defending the middle class, I have my doubts. In fact, the more they talk about defending the middle class, the more they raise taxes, and the more money they take from taxpayers' pockets, which does not help the middle class.

Every time the Liberals introduce a new bill, we can expect taxpayers to be forced to fork out more for a new tax. We all pay taxes. The government is taking even more money out of taxpayers' pockets.

The Liberal mindset is this: I am, I demand, and I think for Canadians. We on this side of the House believe in Canadians and the middle class. We believe that taxpayers need their money. We know perfectly well that Canadians, not the government, are in the best position to manage their own money.

If the Liberals had listened to what anyone other than their cronies had to say, they would realize that not everyone agrees with them.

I have some quotations from certain people to share. On May 31, 2016, the senior director of economic, financial and tax policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:

...we're worried a big tax increase is headed for the middle class like an elbow to the chest....This comes at the worst possible time—an economy reeling from weak commodity prices and slower consumer spending will be lucky to eke out growth of 1.5% next year. It’s difficult to stimulate the economy while pulling money out of the pockets of Canadians.

On June 20, 2016, the president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

It is tremendously disappointing to see that finance ministers are putting Canadian wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy and willfully moving to make an already shaky economy even worse.... It appears that jobs and the economy are not particularly high priorities for the governments that have signed off on this deal.

We have been talking about seniors a lot. The basic principle is not a bad one, but seniors who are 70 years old now will not need help in 40 years. They need help right now. Seniors who are 70 now will never get this help because it will not be available for another 40 years. The Liberal government is bringing in a law that will not take effect until 2019, which is so interesting because that is when the next election happens. That is a very Liberal way of doing things. The Liberals never really cared about the middle class. They cared, as always, about themselves.

It is one thing to hold $1,500 fundraising cocktails and invite a bunch of millionaires, but the middle class is having a hard time making ends meet. The economy is faltering. All of those grand Liberal principles are just a smokescreen. The Liberals talk about giving this to people, and they think we are not politically savvy enough to see through their little game. If changes are to be made, it should not take 40 years.

It is good to think about the long term, but we also need to think about our seniors who need help now, not 40 years from now.

That is why I will be voting against this bill. It is full of holes. It is not what the Liberals say that worries me. It is what they never tell the public. They give nice speeches and make headlines, but what scares me the most is what the Liberals are not saying.

Middle-class families are being taxed to death and are struggling to make ends meet. Many of them will now have a harder time. For example, it will now be even more difficult for new graduates to pay back their student loans or buy their first home. The Liberals did away with the old rules, and now young families will be unable to buy their first home. It will also be more difficult for companies to create jobs and increase wages.

Every time I hear the Liberals talking about their plans, I worry about what they are not saying because that is what is dangerous. No one is against virtue, but the bill before us says in black and white that it will take 40 years for the system to work properly. Not even I will see that money, and I am in my early 50s. In 40 years, I will probably be too old to remember that the Liberals implemented this measure. Our seniors need help today, not in 40 years.

What is more, the same question keeps coming up: where are the Liberals going to find this money? The Liberals are giving out money hand over fist to everyone right now. However, as far as I know, money does not grow on trees. Everyone dreams of a better future, a better life, and a better situation, but that takes money. It is not always pleasant to live on credit. As taxpayers, if we were to live on credit, the bank would not hesitate to come and take our money and our assets when the bill comes due.

I would therefore like someone to explain to me what the Liberals do not understand. We will not vote for this bill as long as it does not produce an immediate effect. The effects of this bill will not be felt for a very long time. However, our seniors need help now, not 40 years from now.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what did the Liberals learn during their ten years in purgatory? Absolutely nothing.

In 2004, the Gomery Commission shed light on the sponsorship scandal. A few days ago, we learned that Chinese billionaires are donating to the Liberal Party in order to gain privileged access to the Prime Minister and his ministers.

Will there be another inquiry in the wake of these revelations of conflict of interest ?

[Ethics, November 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Canada 2020 just introduced some rules to provide a framework for fundraising activities involving the Prime Minister and Liberal ministers, recognizing that there is a serious problem.

Given that Canada 2020 recognizes this important problem, why is it that the government opposite finds it impossible to also recognize that there is a problem and that it is breaking the ethics rules that the Prime Minister himself put in place?

[Infrastructure, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank is much like the Liberal ministers' fundraising cocktails: reserved for a select group of Liberal friends.

The government must be really out of touch with reality and the regions if it intends to set up a bank that will finance only projects worth at least $100 million. That means nothing will flow to smaller towns and cities.

Which of the 40 government MPs from Quebec will stand up for the interests of Quebec's regions?

[Leonard Cohen and Bob Walsh, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we lost two great artists from the Canadian music scene in the past couple of weeks.

The music of these two great icons, Leonard Cohen and Bob Walsh, provided the soundtrack of my youth and soothed my heart and soul.

Leonard Cohen and his brilliance treated us to over 20 albums, and many of his songs became timeless classics that will remain forever etched in our hearts and minds. Mr. Cohen won numerous honours and awards, and showcased our country all around the world.

With his own unique passion, Bob Walsh, the king of Quebec blues, thrilled us throughout his brilliant, exciting career and he, too, earned a number of recognitions. He left an indelible mark on our musical landscape.

I wish to extend my deepest condolences to the families of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Walsh.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 14th, 2016]

With regard to clothing given by government departments or agencies for Ministers or their exempt staff, for each item: (a) what is the description of each item given; (b) what is the value of each item given; and (c) who was the recipient of each item?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 4th, 2016]

With regard to clothing given by government departments or agencies for Ministers or their exempt staff, for each item: (a) what is the description of each item given; (b) what is the value of each item given; and (c) who was the recipient of each item?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 4th, 2016]

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Canadian Heritage since January 1, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?