Massimo Pacetti

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 3rd, 2013]

So for two, three years or four to seven years, there is no program?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have an easy question because the member during his speech was doing a promotional ad for the Conservative budget. I now have an opportunity to ask a question. Just like in the ads, maybe we will get some feedback.

In the ads, the Conservatives specifically talk about training credits, but it says provided there is parliamentary approval. Let us say we will get parliamentary approval. Could the member tell me exactly on what date will this program be applicable to my constituents? My understanding is that it will take two to three years before it even comes into force.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, British Columbia, whose French is excellent and whose question was even better.

I addressed two or three subjects in my speech. One of them was the cuts to the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. I wanted to point this out because it appeared in a report indicating that all the chambers of commerce opposed those cuts, even though most of them support the Conservatives. Thus, we do not understand why they want to cut a program supported by Conservatives, except the Conservatives who sit in the House. It is completely unacceptable.

As for the change to tax credits for credit unions, that is also unacceptable, because we see the growth across the country. Credit unions have always been very popular in Quebec, and this has always been good for attracting investment and money from individuals. Once again, it is completely unacceptable.

I do not know if we can say that this bill is bad for all Canadians, but it is certainly bad for Quebeckers.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a lot of questions, and I will try to address as many of them as I can.

My focus was mainly on a pro-Conservative movement. We have la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain. My speech was based on that.

The Conservatives seem to think that they have everybody on board. I am talking specifically about Quebec because I happen to be a Quebec member. It has nothing to do with pitting one region against the other. The member should read some of my declarations. I tabled a private member's bill that proposed to provide tax incentives to Canadians to travel across this country so they can get to know one another, and all of the Conservatives voted against it. Most Conservatives, not just the member across the way, could learn a lesson or two about how Canadians can learn about each other.

Most of my notes that referenced the cuts to le fonds des travailleurs are in a paper published by the Montreal chamber of commerce, which is a pro-Conservative movement. It said that it is a totally bad idea when 85% of the funds that are utilized by the Fonds du solidarité come from the province of Quebec.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Once again, the Conservatives did not allow a single amendment to their bill in committee. Now we are at report stage in the House, and the bill is deeply flawed. Nevertheless, it will be passed as is if the Liberal Party's amendments at report stage are rejected. Even though the Conservatives are not listening, I would like to use my time to explain how this bill will affect Quebec's economy.

All Quebeckers—except for the Conservative MPs, who are loath to lift a finger for Quebec—are scandalized by the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. Driven by their ideology, the Conservatives have decided to gradually eliminate the tax credit for contributions to labour-sponsored funds because they want to hurt unions. The credit will drop from 15% to 10% on March 1, 2015, then from 10% to 5% on March 1, 2016, and it will be eliminated altogether on March 1, 2017.

The Conservatives used a June 2012 study by the OECD to justify this attack on unions. The study recommended eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds because they offered lower returns than private funds. The study, however, was based on analyses from the early 2000s, and it is a poor reflection of Quebec's reality, which is much different from the rest of Canada's.

Quebeckers are dismayed at this change. The Conservatives might be surprised to hear that it is not the unions crying foul at the government's decision; it is chambers of commerce across the province. They are all united in sounding the alarm. A brief look at the statistics shows why.

This tax credit affects Quebec directly because take-up in our province is 85%. These very popular funds are a huge help to small and medium-sized businesses. They are a staple of Quebec's economy and retirement savings. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, labour-sponsored funds have helped create or maintain over 35,000 jobs.

Venture capital is plentiful in Quebec. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, if we look at the province's venture capital-to-GDP ratio, Quebec ranks third among OECD member countries and is well above the Canadian average. Having access to venture capital is vital to the start-up of many companies. Given that there is generally less entrepreneurship in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we have to understand that putting another obstacle in the way of starting up businesses could be devastating to Quebec's economy.

Labour-sponsored funds generally make long-term investments in businesses. This allows entrepreneurs to start up a company and keep it going until it turns a profit, which can take a number of years. These funds generally also invest in smaller-scale projects than private funds, which makes it possible to help businesses that would not otherwise obtain any funding.

We know that these funds complement private funds rather than compete against them. Together, they allow Quebec to have a competitive economy and, above all, to be one of the most creative places in the world.

I have to speak out against the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds and also the phasing-out of funding for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Last year, the government said that cuts to the organization's operating budget would result in reductions in administrative costs, but not transfers. However, transfers to businesses will be at their lowest level since the law was enacted to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in 2005.

For example, in 2005, $286 million was paid out in transfers. In 2010-11, $424 million was paid out. The Conservatives plan to pay out only $212 million in 2013-14.

Taking inflation into account, we quickly realize that the Conservatives are also looking to gradually eliminate the agency. As I previously asked here in the House, will the Conservatives stand up and tell us clearly what they intend to do with Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions? Are they planning on abolishing it, as they are doing with the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Many Quebec businesses need this government assistance. What is the Conservative plan? Why do most of their cuts directly target Quebec?

Another serious problem with this bill is that it calls into question the autonomy of crown corporations, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Canada Post and VIA Rail. Everyone knows that the Conservatives like to control everything and they never hesitate to extend the scope of this control. Many Canadians are justifiably concerned about this government's lack of transparency.

In my case, since this bill was introduced I have received five times more correspondence on this issue than on any others.

The government now wants to interfere in the collective bargaining process. It is talking about reducing the compensation of crown corporation employees, including their pensions.

I do not understand why Conservatives have such a rigid ideology. With this budget, they are taking advantage of their majority position to impose their vision on Canadians. This budget is openly hostile to workers, including employees of crown corporations.

Another major concern about this bill is that it does not do enough to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to youth unemployment. We all know that young people have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Today, their unemployment rate is 5% higher than before the economic crisis. It is very disconcerting. As we speak, young people have just finished or are finishing up their semester. They racked up debt all year long in order to pay for tuition, housing, food and other things. However, they will have a hard time finding a summer job. For them, the summer is the only time when they can put a bit of money in their pockets.

If they do not get a job this summer, some young people will have to drop out of school temporarily or permanently only to, quite often, end up working for minimum wage. Many will not be able to resume their studies because they will not have the money to pay for another year of school. Those who pursue their studies anyway will have to tighten their belts, which will have an adverse economic impact. They will consume less this summer, which will decrease revenues for a number of businesses.

I am asking my Conservative colleagues: where are the measures for boosting youth employment? Where is the government's vision for young people? There is nothing for them in this budget, just bad news for their future.

I could go on and on about many other aspects of the budget that concern me. I raised a number of points at second reading. I raised more today, and I will raise even more at third reading.

Although there are some points I agree with, there are many I do not agree with. I am particularly concerned about the tax hikes, but I will not have time to talk about that issue.

In general, this bill and the government's economic action plan are tainted with a narrow ideology that does not support workers' rights. This ideology would have them control everything, even when the Supreme Court tells the government it cannot do something, as was the case with the securities commission.

This budget is not designed to stimulate the economy. Instead, it is designed to transform Canada into the Conservatives' vision for Canada. This is not a budget for Canadians. It is a budget for the Conservatives.

We will vote for Canadians and we will vote against this budget.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges took over from a previous member named Mr. Discepola, who was a former mayor and who passed away recently. This member obviously cannot hold a candle to him by asking questions like that.

However, I recall that during our years, between 1993 and 2000 we actually increased converting national parks by 50% and actually increased the budget to our national parks by 25%.

I am not sure where this member is getting his facts, but he should probably look at the history books and look at the previous budgets the government tabled under the Liberal Party.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with the NDP. One of its members is asking me about what happened in the 1990s and another one is asking me about something that is happening right now.

We have a leading scholar as our democratic reform critic. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville has an untarnished past and an untarnished reputation when it comes to making suggestions for reforming the Senate.

The easiest reform, I can tell members right now, if we look at our caucus, is to appoint competent senators.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have to address the Senate. My own private member's bill was passed in the House of Commons and stuck in the Senate, but that is because of the Conservative-dominated Senate and the fact that its members were not able to fulfill their role as parliamentarians. It is very shameful.

However, in this situation, we had a case where the Conservatives tabled a bill and the Liberal senators on the committee were able to present amendments. The amendments were accepted. We are not sure if the same thing is going to happen here in the House. We will wait to see what committee finally does.

Maybe the member is older than I am, but in the 1990s I remember Conservative governments overspending money. When we took over we did a good job in controlling the deficit. In my youthful years I am hoping that when we take over in 2015, we will be able to get everything in order, and spend money appropriately and properly.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I want to thank the member for the offer to visit Sable Island.

We are in uncharted territory. Normally petroleum companies would ask to explore a national park. This is a situation where petroleum companies are already exploring for oil or natural resources and we are going to be converting that to a national park, so we are in uncharted territory. I think we should take our time and make sure that we do consult all stakeholders, all people affected and all governments that are subject to having to govern this type of situation.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously an environmental buff. Being that she is the leader of the Green Party, I would not be able to challenge her on some of her statements.

As I stated in my speech, our environmental critic has a few things that she would like to examine at committee stage. I know the bill was looked at in the Senate. That is why we have two houses, so that we can have a review of what the other house did. I hope that this bill will have a deep review and not just a cursory review, and that we do not just quickly pass it without consultation.

One of the things that we can look at in a positive light is that, importantly, five oil companies that had been granted exploration licences for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish the rights. Therefore, I feel optimistic that the offshore petroleum board would not be granting licences on Sable Island.